Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1961, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Group Captain Clifford Arthur Bowman Wilcock, O.B.E., A.F.C., Member for Derby, North, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members may have noticed that Questions Nos. 9 and 10 do not appear in their proper place on the Order Paper. Questions to the Secretary for Technical Co-operation should have come after Questions to the Postmaster-General, and I therefore propose to call them after Question No. 25, which is the last to the Postmaster-General.

MINISTRY OF WORKS

Banqueting House, Whitehall

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now make a further statement on the proposal to remove the museum from the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Works if he is now able to make a statement about the future of the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The Royal United Service Institution has expressed its readiness to vacate the Banqueting House. Her Majesty The Queen has approved and has granted the use of the Banqueting House to the Government.
In future the public will see this masterpiece of Inigo Jones' as it was meant to be seen, for the first time for over 250 years.

Mr. Parker: Is the Minister aware that there will be general satisfaction on both sides of the House at his Answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what arrangements have been made for furnishing the building in its new rôle?

Lord John Hope: I shall have to consider the details of what to suggest with regard to that. The first stage is to know that one is able to get in there, and I should like to take this opportunity, as I am sure the House would


like me to, to thank the Institution for its great co-operation over this. No one could leave the Banqueting House without reluctance, and I am deeply grateful to the Institution. It will, of course, be continuing its educational work from its adjacent headquarters.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this result is the outcome of a very long cherished wish on the part not only of his own Department at present but of his predecessors in it as first Commissioners of Works that this historic and great building should come to a worthy use with the free acquiescence, of course, of those who are now giving up their Royal Charter? Is not the Council of the Royal United Service Institution deserving of some thanks for the action it has now taken?

Lord John Hope: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I entirely agree.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any notion of what is to become of the contents of the museum and can we be assured that they will be kept together and be not much less accessible to the public than they have been?

Lord John Hope: That is entirely a matter for the Royal United Service Institution.

Sir K. Pickthorn: In that case, then, my right hon. Friend can—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent as much time as we can on that.

Broad Sanctuary (New Building)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to see that the new building to be erected in Broad Sanctuary is faced with stone of a quality fitting to its surroundings.

Lord John Hope: I have invited the architect whose design was placed first in the competition to submit proposals for the use of stone and to estimate the additional cost involved. I will consider the matter when I receive these proposals.

Capital Works

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works to what extent the capital works of his Department have

been reduced or slowed down in the last six months as a contribution to the overall policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Lord John Hope: There has been a reduction of over 4 per cent. in the original programme of capital works for 1962–63.

Mr. Hamilton: Has any reduction been made in the capital development for the current year? Is the Minister aware that the country as a whole has been led to believe that we are in such a mess that everyone has to make his contribution to getting us out of it; and that we should like to know whether his Department is making such a contribution this year?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. I am giving what help I can in that direction.

Prince of Wales' Gate, Hyde Park

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Works for what reason the Prince of Wales' Gate in Hyde Park was closed; and why this exit from the Park was not available to traffic for a long time, in view of the fact that the traffic notices described the closure as temporary.

Lord John Hope: The gate was closed for repairs to the road surface which have taken longer than expected, partly due to unfavourable weather. I hope to re-open the gate on 1st February.

Mr. Dance: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the closing of this gate caused great disruption of traffic? It took place just about a fortnight before Christmas. Will he see that a suitable "rocket" is given to the contractors concerned?

Lord John Hope: I am very sorry that this work has taken as long as it has. It has been a great nuisance, but I am glad to say that it is nearly at an end.

Bernhard Baron Pavilion, Regent's Park

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Works what progress he has made with the rebuilding of the Bernhard Baron Pavilion in Regent's Park.

Lord John Hope: I have approved a design which is acceptable to the Royal Fine Art Commission. I hope that, subject to the availability of funds, the


work can begin next autumn and be completed by the end of 1963.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to many organisations and individuals who have been deeply concerned at the long delay in rebuilding this pavilion? When the pavilion is rebuilt and fit for use, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that the running track and ground around it in Regent's Park is fit for greater use than at present?

Lord John Hope: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

1a, Kensington Palace (Repair Work)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made in the repair work on Kensington Palace; and whether the work will be completed by the end of the current financial year.

Lord John Hope: A contract has been let. The work will begin shortly and is expected to take about twelve months.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that an announcement was made yesterday by his Department about the extravagantly increased expenditure on this house? Is this part of that contribution he is making to the solution of our national economic problems of which he spoke in answer to Question No. 3? Does he not think it a deplorable priority sense that at this time, when there are thousands of homeless in London, this kind of money should be spent on this apartment?

Lord John Hope: I do not believe that I should be making any contribution at all to the national interests if I let a building like this deteriorate any further. It has been deteriorating for over twenty years, and it is high time something was done to restore it.

Mr. Paget: Is any contribution being made by the prospective tenants, in view of the fact that they appear to be fairly amply provided for both publicly and privately—

Mr. Speaker: I think that supplementary question is out of order.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is out of order in my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question implied, in its use of the adverb "amply" a reflection upon the occupants of that building. That is why I thought that it was out of order.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it out of order to ask whether a contribution is being made by the prospective tenants, in view of the fact that provision is being made for them by this House and, as we learn, by private contract?

Mr. Speaker: If, by the use of the adverb, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not making the type of reflection I thought he was, I accept it entirely from him and, in that event, the supplementary question is not out of order.

Lord John Hope: The answer is, as was stated in the relevant notice to the Press, that private contribution will be forthcoming above the sum of £85,000 so long as this is not the result of what we call building hazards. If we find dry rot or anything we do not know is there, that would not rank for private contribution; anything else would.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one has suggested that this building should be allowed to remain in its present state; that what we are complaining of is that it is to be used to house someone who is already housed—and that in a city where there are thousands of people still waiting for houses but with no prospect of getting them?

Lord John Hope: I must answer for what I am constitutionally responsible, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with me what use is made of grace-and-favour buildings. I am responsible, as far as I can be, for putting a building like this into repair, and I am sure that it is right to do it now rather than to wait longer.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Works what improvements he intends to make at the Alexandra Gate of Hyde Park, near the Albert Memorial, in order to relieve traffic congestion.

Lord John Hope: None, Sir, at present.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is one of the worst bottlenecks in London at present? Is there not a good deal of room for a roundabout to be put there, and will he look at this problem, which has been outstanding for a long time?

Lord John Hope: I am aware that my hon. Friend and others have given considerable thought to this problem, but I think he would agree that it is better now to wait until the Park Lane scheme comes into operation, as that may be very relevant to what we do there.

TELEPHONE SERVICE

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of applicants for telephones in Aberdeen who are on the waiting list; and what steps he is taking to reduce this number.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): In the City of Aberdeen there were 109 applications on the waiting list at 31st December, and a further 233 under inquiry or in course of being met. Most of these applicants live on new housing estates.
New cables are being laid, and I hope that those at present waiting will be given service in the summer.
Nearly 1,500 telephones were installed in Aberdeen last year.

Mr. Hughes: Is not that a terrible confession of failure by the Postmaster-General? Does he realise that the engineering labour force is inadequate to meet current needs, that his failure to remedy the men's grievances can only lead to further delay in providing the service required; and that he owes a duty, not only to the men in his service

but to the business community to see that the telephone service is maintained to its fullest extent? Will he take steps to that end?

Mr. Bevins: I have not the exact figures by me, Mr. Speaker, but I should be very surprised if there were more than one or two business people in the City of Aberdeen waiting for telephones. As for a confession of failure, I should like to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the present waiting list represents less than half of 1 per cent. of the total number of people in the City of Aberdeen who have telephones.

Old People

Mrs. Butler: asked the Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take to assist old people living alone with the cost of their telephones where this involves financial hardship.

Mr. Bevins: I have considered this idea sympathetically on several occasions and I should very much like to respond to the hon. Lady's suggestion, but the practical difficulties are very real—I will write to the hon. Member about them—and I am afraid I cannot at present agree to differential charges.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that being able to get in touch quickly by telephone with family and friends—or, in an emergency, with the doctor or the police—plays a very large part in enabling elderly people to live happily and safely alone; and that many are now being forced to give up the telephone because of the increased cost? The right hon. Gentleman says that he has looked at the question several times, but would he please look at it again? If he did, I am quite certain that he would find a way round the problem, and help these people who most need it.

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Lady knows, the difficulty here is to know where to draw the line. If this concession were to be made to elderly people who are housebound and living alone I am quite sure that we should get demands for similar concessions from the disabled, the blind, charitable organisations, and so forth. But I am perfectly ready at any time to discuss this quite freely with the hon. Lady.

Mr. W. R. Williams: May I press on the Postmaster-General that despite the difficulties, of which I am quite aware, there is a real case for re-examination here? I myself have received quite a number of letters which lead me to believe that many of these old people are denying themselves the basic essentials of life in order to retain this, the only contact they have with relatives and friends. Would he be prepared to discuss with some of us the possibility of starting this, on a limited scale first of all, and, if that is possible, to see how it could be enlarged?

Mr. Bevins: I have already referred to some of the practical difficulties, but I also implied that my mind is certainly riot closed on this very human problem.

Emergency Calls, Country Subscribers

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Postmaster-General, whether emergency calls from country telephone subscribers, obliged to dial O in order to make them, have been delayed by the policy of work-to-rule; and what effect it has had on the time taken for a call to reach the police, fire and ambulance services.

Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that the telephone service has not been significantly affected by work-to-rule, and I have no knowledge of any delays to emergency calls of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend. If, however, he has any particular case in mind and will let me have details I should be very glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend explain how such callers in need of the fire brigade or the ambulance or police are given priority over callers who merely want a gossip?

Mr. Bevins: Whether or not we had working-to-rule in operation at the moment, it would still be necessary on certain exchanges for a person wanting to make an emergency call to dial O. It is after a caller has dialled O and the operator knows that the call is an emergency call that priority is given.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his hon. Friend's supplementary question, consider further whether it is possible for this way of signalling for priority and

emergency services to be introduced on private telephones and even on manual exchanges?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, most certainly, we are moving in that direction all the time.

New Kiosks (Design)

Mr. Holland: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the design of the new telephone kiosk.

Mr. Bevins: I have obtained some of the prototypes of a new kiosk designed by Mr. Neville Conder which I propose to put on trial. With the agreement of the authorities of the House, one will be placed in the Upper Waiting Hall this coming weekend for Members to see, and others will be available for public use from Monday next at Grosvenor Gardens and at the rear of the Royal Exchange.

Mr. Holland: While regretting that my right hon. Friend has not found a site in Acton for one of these prototypes, can he say over what period of time he is proposing to spread the replacement of existing telephone kiosks if this new one proves successful? Can he give us some information, either now or next week, when we get a sight of the new one, about costs, so that when we assess the aesthetic and functional advantages of the new kiosk we can have some idea of assessing the value for money which it represents?

Mr. Bevins: I will see what I can do about Acton. There is no intention that these new kiosks should be put in place of existing ones within a very short period. The fact of the matter is that this new kiosk is very much more expensive than the old ones. If they are to be adopted for further general use over a period of years, they will have to be put mainly in the new call offices and in replacement of kiosks which are more or less obsolete.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when replacing these kiosks, he will pay some tribute to his predecessor, Fred Jowett, who introduced them and who obtained the greatest co-operation of the leading architects in this country, including Sir Edwin Lutyens, in designing them?

Mr. Bevins: Most certainly.

POST OFFICE

Mail Deliveries, Christmas Day

Mr. Marten: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now make permanent the suspension of mail deliveries on Christmas Day.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): My right hon. Friend intends to review the future of the Christmas Day deliveries as soon as the results of last year's experiment have been collected and analysed; and he will make an announcement as soon as he can.

Mr. Marten: Can my hon. Friend say whether so far there has been any violent reaction to the suspension of deliveries on Christmas Day?

Miss Pike: No, we have had no serious complaint about the suspension of deliveries.

Accounts

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General what surplus he anticipates on the Post Office General Account, and on postal and telecommunications accounts, respectively, at the end of the current financial year on the basis of prices, rates of pay, and tariffs current on 1st December, 1961.

Mr. Bevins: I estimate a surplus of about £17 million in the current financial year of which about £15 million will come from telecommunications. These figures do not take into account the effect of working to rule, since the duration of this is not yet known.

Parcels, West Riding

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Postmaster-General what new arrangements his Department has made for the handling of parcels into and out of the West Riding.

Miss Pike: Experimental road services carrying parcels between Leeds and Manchester, and between a number of towns in the West Riding, have been introduced. These are part of a study of ways of improving the parcel post service, and follow on a recommendation of a study group which my right hon. Friend set up to advise on the handling

and conveyance of mails between Post Offices.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Lady aware that so far these arrangements have given considerable satisfaction in the West Riding and that the activities of herself and of her Department are in striking contrast in this matter to the inactivity of the Minister of Transport and of Dr. Beeching?

Miss Pike: We are watching this experiment very closely.

Conveyance of Mails (Study Group)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Postmaster-General, if the study group, appointed in July, 1960, to find out whether the arrangements for the handling and conveyance of mails between post offices were the most efficient and economical that could be devised, has yet reported; and what were its recommendations.

Miss Pike: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on 3rd August, 1961. Copies of the study group's Report are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Post Office Employees (Dispute)

Sir R. Pilkington: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effect upon the national economy by the Post Office workers' policy of work-to-rule.

Mr. Bevins: I regret that work-to-rule has brought about some deterioration of Post Office services. My aim has been to keep this to a minimum and, while some businesses have been affected, I do not think that there has been any significant effect on the national economy as a whole.

Sir R. Pilkington: While most people regret the methods chosen by the Post Office workers, is my right hon. Friend aware that the public are very grateful indeed for the efforts made to carry on the service?

Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely the Postmaster-General cannot accept all the implications of that supplementary question? Is he aware that many people


amongst the Post Office workers and others are satisfied that if he himself had not been so stubborn and intractable over this issue there would have been possible a compromise means of coming to some interim settlement of these disputes between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union, and that there is a general feeling in the country that he has been sitting back and has not been active enough?

Mr. Bevins: First, I should like to say that I am indeed grateful to the public and to the business community in particular for the forbearance that they have shown in the last three weeks. As to my attitude to this claim, I have always sought to avoid provocation. I have at all times sought to be reasonable. But, having said that, I have also sought to be firm and I shall continue to be firm.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the increased expenditure to date in overtime payments, employment of temporary staff, and diversion of mails, resulting from his dispute with the trade unions.

Mr. Bevins: About £¼ million.

Mr. Swingler: There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. Did I gather that the figure is £¼ million?

Mr. Bevins: indicated assent.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not absolutely ridiculous, from the point of view of economy, that the Postmaster-General is spending more money on maintaining a less efficient service in the Post Office entirely due to the Government's obstinate refusal to discuss wages in a reasonable manner?

Mr. Bevins: No, the hon. Gentleman takes far too parochial a view. A quarter of a million pounds, or even ten times that amount, is really a row of beans compared with the damage to the national economy that my submission to pressure might involve.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has denied the unions concerned the right to negotiate on the disputes between the various departments and themselves? He is seeking to force them to arbitration on

conditions that he himself is imposing, and, in fact, he is acting precisely in the same way towards Post Office workers as his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has been trying to do with regard to the transport workers.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The claim of the union of Post Office workers, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was based on comparisons with all outside manufacturing industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because that is not the basis upon which Civil Service pay is determined. It is determined on the basis of fair comparisons with outside employment. Therefore, I took the view that the claim was not established. The basis of fair comparisons, which is the accepted method of determining Civil Service pay, is at present being worked out by the Pay Research Unit. I have said repeatedly that once that information is available I shall be prepared to negotiate, but that if the union is not prepared so to wait, then I will be willing to join with it in an application for arbitration. The union is opposed to both of these courses. What it is insisting upon is an interim payment in advance of the end of the pause, and that is something to which I cannot agree.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair with the House on a dispute of this sort. I sincerely hope that, in response to what I am about to ask him, he will issue a White Paper reproducing the correspondence and the notes relating to all the agreed discussions that have taken place with the respective unions, in order that this House can itself assess the relative values of the arguments of the Postmaster-General and the unions. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, will he also give us an opportunity to debate the whole issue in this House?

Mr. Bevins: I think it would be a most unusual course to issue a White Paper while a dispute is still in progress, but I shall be content to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman at the end of these proceedings.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to date from cancellation of


parcel post and other measures resulting from his dispute with the trade unions.

Mr. Bevins: I estimate the loss of revenue on posts at about £¾ million, but of course this will be partially offset by increased revenue from telephones.

Mr. Swingler: Is this another row of beans? Is it not absolutely clear that sooner or later the Postmaster-General has got to negotiate wages with the postal workers? In the interests of the national economy and of most people in the country, and in order to avoid this wastage, ought it not to be sooner rather than later?

Mr. Bevins: It may well be that the time will presently come when we shall be able to resume discussions, but what I have been trying to make clear is that those discussions cannot be resumed while industrial action of this sort is in progress or on terms dictated to me by the trade unions concerned.

Post Office Employees (Working Rules)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether working rules for Post Office employees are being revised.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Come on. Working to rule?

Mr. Bevins: I do not.
In general, I am satisfied that our rules, if interpreted with good will and common sense, should not cause delay. I have, however, very much in mind the points raised in the hon. Member's Question, and I shall presently be reviewing these rules.

TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Overseas Information Services

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will now make a statement on the future development of the overseas information services.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have been asked to reply.
We shall be proposing that expenditure for 1962–63 on these services should, subject to the approval of the

House, be rather higher than this current year. This is because risen costs and expansion at home outweigh the £600,000 of savings overseas referred to by my right hon. Friend on 19th December. For detail I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Civil Estimates.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that this represents a welcome retreat from the position taken by the Secretary for Technical Co-operation on his last appearance, no doubt, in response, we hope, to the pressure of the Opposition? Is not the Minister aware that when allowance has been made for costs, this still means a considerable cut in the activities of our overseas information services? Is it not rather a strange moment to cut these services when our influence and reputation abroad have been damaged by the Government's policies?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is fair. When my right hon. Friend answered the Question on 19th December, he said that the issue of risen costs remained to be decided, and that is a very important part of the Answer I have given. As well as the cuts overseas, to which he has referred, and which are in response to my right hon. and learned Friend's call in July, there have been increases at home.

Mr. Kershaw: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in services like these, sudden changes of policy like a cut one year and an increase the next, are very harmful to these services? Will he do what he can to maintain an even flow?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly. I do not know that one even wishes to keep an even flow. I hope we can continue to expand these services, but that, like so many other desirable developments, depends on economic progress.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that, in practice, certain projects, like those of the British Council, were actually begun and have had to be suddenly closed, with a great loss of good will as a result?

Mr. Thomas: Some of the savings in overseas expenditure announced recently will be met by the Council, partly by postponing things which it intended to


do rather than by stopping existing work, but generally the Council will share in next year's increases.

B.B.C. Overseas Services

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he has yet received the report of the working party on the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas services.

Mr. P. Thomas: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir. The Government, after consulting with the British Broadcasting Corporation, have now completed a comprehensive review of external broadcasting. We have worked out a long-term policy based on two fundamental principles. First, that our effort should be concentrated on those areas where sound broadcasting is the most effective of our information media and, secondly, that the broadcasts should be heard there without difficulty even on the cheaper types of set.
The Government have therefore approved a major programme of building new transmitters. This will cost over £4½ million and should make it much easier for people to hear the B.B.C. in those areas where we believe sound broadcasting to be most valuable, particularly in Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, we have also decided on a minor redeployment of effort. The British Broadcasting Corporation's services in Russian, in Hausa and in English for East Africa will be expanded, and the Thai service resumed. At the same time the British Broadcasting Corporation will curtail its services to the United States, and discontinue a small service for South Africa and the use of a transmitter in Western Germany. Some further economies will eventually be needed to help meet the heavy cost of running the new transmitters. These are being discussed with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that, as far as they go, these announcements are welcome? Can he say what the total budget for broadcasting will be in the coming year?

Mr. Thomas: No; I am afraid I cannot give the exact figure at the moment.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

Exports

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade which foreign countries treat United Kingdom exports more favourably than exports of countries which are not contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): The information is not available. Our main competitors are all contracting parties and our exports are treated in general as favourably as theirs.

Mr. Russell: Will my hon. Friend, therefore, say what is the advantage of belonging to this organisation compared with the sixty-odd countries which now do not belong to it?

Sir K. Joseph: The G.A.T.T. secures us fair treatment in overseas markets, safeguards us against unfair discrimination, is a forum for the discussion of fair practice, and is constantly seeking successfully to reduce tariffs. As a major international trading country, these are all to our advantage.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

London County Council Development Plan

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now publish his provisional conclusions on the inspectors' report on the public local inquiry held to consider the revision of the London County Council Development Plan.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My right hon. Friend hopes to publish his provisional conclusions early in February.

Greater London (Staffing Requirements)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the saving in staffs of Metropolitan, borough and district


councils in the Greater London area which might result from the amalgamation of councils as proposed in the White Paper.

Mr. Rippon: The new London boroughs will be responsible for important services now provided by the county councils and this, as well as the amalgamations, will affect the staffing requirements. These cannot be reliably forecast at this stage.

Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say when a reliable forecast can be made? Otherwise, how are we to judge between the White Paper proposals and the proposals of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Rippon: The Royal Commission dealt with this question of economy in staff and other matters, and pointed out that the best guarantee of economy is the provision of efficient and effective local government areas. That is our purpose.

Mr. C. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety amongst many local government officers likely to be affected by the plan for the reorganisation of London local government, and will he consult with his right hon. Friend on the desirability of giving firm assurances in the cases of any officers displaced who cannot find comparable appointments outside the London area, that adequate compensation will be paid to them?

Mr. Rippon: We well appreciate that point and my right hon. Friend has it very much in mind, but I ought to make it clear, as my right hon. Friend did to my hon. Friend the Member far Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) before Christmas, that any legislation would, of course, provide for proper compensation on loss of employment or reduction in pay.

NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on his proposed new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia; and on what principles it is to be based.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the Northern Rhodesia Constitution.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now give particulars of proposed constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia; and when they are to be introduced.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 19th December.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is great public dismay because this statement has been made as a result of a split between the Ministers responsible, which has now been revealed for the whole world to see? How long is this to be held up? How long are the interests of Rhodesians to be sacrificed because of a feud in the Tory ranks? Does the Under-Secretary know that it now appears that his right hon. Friends have lost control?

Mr. Fraser: No; that is absolutely untrue. I read everything which is written, including some of the speeches made by my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). Of course, I recognise the need for an early decision on this matter. I am sure that there will be one available to the House and the country soon.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the Government make what we were given to understand and what Northern Rhodesia was given to understand was their final decision in the summer of 1961? Has not the result of the Government's shilly-shallying since then and their apparent reopening of that final decision been to lead extremists in Northern Rhodesia to believe that the Government can be blackmailed and to encourage them to resort to violence and terrorism?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir; that simply is not true. What we said, and said quite correctly, in September was that we should review the situation, especially in certain sectors of what had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that that is perfectly proper, and the review has been carried out.

Mr. Brockway: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this crisis in Northern


Rhodesia may be determined upon issues between African and European populations over a large part of the continent? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the desire of many of us in the House that the Northern Rhodesia issue may soon be settled and that the great African majority in that community will feel that it has been dealt with justly by the Government?

Mr. Fraser: This will be settled, I believe, in the best interests of the communities as a whole and of the territory as a whole.

Viscount Lambton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that knowledge of what is happening in Africa is confined to this side of the House illustrates the extraordinary paucity of the Opposition?

THE WEST INDIES

Minister's Visit

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his official visit to The West Indies.

Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend does not return until 28th January from The West Indies, where discussions are still proceeding.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the regrettable vote by Jamaica against federation, will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the desire of very many in the House that federation may still be established between Trinidad and neighbouring West Indian islands and extended to British Guiana in South America, and will he seek to facilitate an arrangement by which such a Federation might have independence at the date originally planned for the wider Federation?

Mr. Fraser: These are precisely the sort of problems which my right hon. Friend is now discussing. Of course, there are much more intimate and individual problems with which he has to cope during his visit to The West Indies.

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. Pentland: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give an assurance that he will lay before Parliament before

ratification the proposals whereby the United Kingdom agrees to join the Common Market.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: May we have an assurance also that a General Election will be held before these agreements are entered into?

Mr. Heath: That is an entirely different question.

UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the recent Anglo-American discussions in the United States of America about the future of the United Nations and other matters of joint concern.

Mr. Heath: These talks were part of normal Anglo-American consultation on United Nations matters. No decisions were reached but there was a detailed and useful exchange of views.

Mr. Wall: Could my right hon. Friend say what discussions took place about the purchase of United Nations bonds? Will he bear in mind that at a time when we are asked to exercise economy in this country many people think it undesirable to make this investment?

Mr. Heath: Both the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government supported the motion when it came before the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government are now giving consideration to the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are not the United States Government working out proposals for reform of the United Nations in various ways, and were these matters discussed in the talks which the right hon. Gentleman had with the Americans?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; those taking part had a general discussion about the future organisation of the United Nations. I think that both the United States and we recognise the difficulty in bringing any of the proposed changes about. Some of the proposals, of course, we have put forward in the past, for instance, for the reconstruction of the Security Council and of the Economic and Social Council. We are faced with the difficulty of the Russian veto.

JAPAN (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his postponed visit to Japan.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): For reasons which the House knows, I was compelled with great regret to postpone the Asian tour which I had planned for last September, including my visit to Japan. But I regard this tour as postponed, not, I hope, cancelled.

Mr. Ridsdale: That reply is most encouraging, but will not my right hon. Friend agree that Princess Alexandra's visit last year showed that there was a great deal of good will and friendship in Japan towards this country and that a visit to Japan by himself would do a great deal to help the growing friendly relations between our two countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I recognise the growing good relations, and, if I may do so without impropriety, I pay a tribute to the work which Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra did in that respect.

Mr. Callaghan: When the Prime Minister visits Japan, will he inquire into the reasons why those small islands without any natural resources are able to pursue their export and production policies with such marked success and without a pay pause?

The Prime Minister: Although there is a certain similarity in the character of our islands, there is, alas, a certain similarity in the balance of payments difficulties which both countries are suffering at the moment.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of his talks in Bermuda with President Kennedy about a resumption of British nuclear tests.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement about his talks with President Kennedy regarding proposals for solving the German problem;
(2) if he will make a statement about his talks with President Kennedy regarding the resumption of nuclear test explosions.

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent talks with President Kennedy in Bermuda.

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Prime Minister why it was decided at his meeting with President Kennedy in Bermuda to resume atmospheric testing; and what estimate he has made of the military value of such testing.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what conclusions were drawn by President Kennedy and himself from their joint study at the Bermuda Conference of the Bethe report on the recent Soviet nuclear tests.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent during his meeting with President Kennedy he discussed the possibility of nuclear tests being resumed.

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what arrangement he reached in his recent talks with the President of the United States of America at Bermuda about making Christmas Island available to the United States Government for the testing of nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister: Hon. Members will have read the joint communiqué which was issued on 22nd December by President Kennedy and myself after our meeting. Our talks were private and it would not be proper for me to enlarge further upon them.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Prime Minister realise that ordinary people in this country, who are very concerned about nuclear tests and who have entrusted him with very great power over their lives, would welcome his assurance that in no circumstances will he resume nuclear tests and that in no circumstances will he make available Christmas Island or any other British territory to the United States for a resumption of nuclear tests?

The Prime Minister: I note what the hon. Lady says, but I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 31st October.

Mr. Allaun: Since atmospheric tests can be detected by existing means, could not the West suspend these tests so long as Russia did the same?
Turning to my Question about Germany, if negotiations are further delayed, will there not be a real danger of Khrushchev being replaced by more intransigent men? In other words, is not he the best Soviet Prime Minister we have?

The Prime Minister: Those supplementary questions raise rather large issues which it is difficult to deal with by question and answer.

Mr. Reynolds: Since all the experts seem to agree that the Russians obtained no military advantage from their last series of tests, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what it is we have got to try to catch up with, and, in view of the fact that it has been repeatedly stated by American spokesmen that the Western Powers already have a second strike force equivalent at least to anything which can be delivered from the East at the first strike, what exactly is the purpose of continuing with tests?

The Prime Minister: The evaluation of the effect of the Russian tests is still going on among the experts, and I would not accept as accurate the phrase which the hon. Member used.

Mr. Warbey: As the Bethe report, to which I refer in my Question, shows that the Soviet tests produced very little fall-out and were of very definite military value and that even the 50 megaton bomb could have a military use, and since this contradicts not only the declaration of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) but also that of the Prime Minister himself at the time, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that these tests are all a part of the nuclear arms race and that the real answer is to get on urgently with multilateral disarmament?

The Prime Minister: Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer questions about an unpublished report made to the United States Administration. Regarding the second part, no one is more anxious than we are, all of us, to see if we can make

progress with disarmament, properly organised and properly inspected.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the horror and indignation which the Prime Minister expressed at the Russian atomic tests, will he give a definite assurance that Christmas Island will not be given to the Americans for the purpose of these tests?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the testing of nuclear weapons as being of military necessity? If so, does he not agree that these tests should be carried out within the boundaries of the nations that think that way, and not among peoples with whom at no time has he had any consultation as to whether or not they want the tests carried out in their territories?

The Prime Minister: I really have nothing to add on the military side to what I said on 31st October. With regard to the general question, I will make a statement at the appropriate time.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister answer two questions arising out of the communiqué issued after the talks? Firstly, can he say whether the discussions about the possible resumption of nuclear tests were concerned with joint testing by the United States and the United Kingdom, or with testing by the United States alone? Secondly, can he say whether, in fact, a request was made by the United States Government for facilities on Christmas Island?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to go further than the communiqué at the present time. At the earliest possible moment I will make a further statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister nevertheless aware that there has been a great deal of speculation in the Press? Is it not most desirable that these points—and at least the ones I have put—should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment, especially the points about whether we are involved in this and whether a formal request was made for Christmas Island? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no further steps will be taken either by ourselves or by the United


States, so far as atmospheric tests are concerned, before further negotiations on disarmament have begun?

The Prime Minister: I hope that I will be able to make a statement shortly on this whole question, but I should prefer to wait until the terms of it are ready. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]

UNITED NATIONS (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick on 28th December, on the subject of the United Nations Organisation, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick on 28th December, 1961, about the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December about the future of the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December concerning the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware of the grave concern felt not only in Northumberland but throughout Britain and the world about the statement made by the Foreign Secretary? Will he consider replacing the occupant of this post with someone more fitted to voice the aspirations and hopes of the British people in the second half of the twentieth century?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Foreign Secretary's speech. I thought it very well-balanced and I would call

attention to the final words when he gave all the difficulties and advantages and said
Having drawn up the balance sheet between pessimism and hope, I come down decidedly on the side of hope".

Mr. Thomson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary openly called into question Britain's continued support of the United Nations? Is he further aware that his speech has been quoted with glee by the enemies of the United Nations all over the world? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to correct the disastrous effects of the Foreign Secretary's speech by saying that in future Britain's moral influence in the world will be used to enhance the United Nations and not to denigrate it?

The Prime Minister: I will have a copy of the full text of the speech placed in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman will study it he will see that it is exactly what I have said—an extremely well-balanced speech pointing out the difficulties, and the reforms and advances which we hope to make. I think that this is the view of the House and, I am sure, of the country as a whole.

Mr. Warbey: As the Prime Minister supports the Foreign Secretary's speech, does not that mean that Her Majesty's Government have lost interest in the United Nations now that the "wind of change" is blowing in the General Assembly? As the Foreign Secretary is so far behind the times and wants to see the world ruled by a concert of imperialist Powers, is it not time that we had a Foreign Secretary under the control of a democratic assembly?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has so wholly misrepresented what the Foreign Secretary said that I hardly think that he will expect me to answer him.

Mr. Longden: Is the Prime Minister aware that blind devotion to the United Nations does not serve its cause and that most people in this country believe that my noble Friend did very well indeed to set out frankly its obvious dangers and effects before summing up, as he did, the reasons why Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to give it resolute support?

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend has said very well sums up the purpose the Foreign Secretary had in mind.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that this speech aroused great consternation among our friends and allies all over the world, all of whom have read every word of the text of the Foreign Secretary's speech, just as we have? Is the Prime Minister aware that the references in the speech to the anti-colonial resolution in the United Nations, which was supported by the vast majority of the United Nations—including the United States—has suggested to the world that Britain is content to ally herself to Portugal and two or three other ex-colonial Powers?

The Prime Minister: That is a complete misrepresentation of the speech and also a misrepresentation of the effect it has had both in this country and overseas.

Dame Irene Ward: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a valuable thing to have a Foreign Secretary who has both the knowledge and the courage to speak out both on the faults and on the successes of an organisation which we want to strengthen and make available for maintaining the peace of the world and not just as a sort of organisation which is used for propaganda purposes?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite clear that there is a wide difference of opinion about this speech? Is it not highly desirable that the matter should be cleared up by an early debate, and will he use his authority with the Leader of the House to ensure that the Government provide time for a debate on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I think that that matter, concerning the debates of the House, is best dealt with through the usual channels.

UNITED NATIONS (NORTHERN RHODESIA AND THE CONGO)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the

Federation of Central Africa regarding the stationing of United Nations observers on the frontier between Northern Rhodesia and the Republic of the Congo.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding the United Nations and the situation in Katanga and the United Nations' request for facilities within Northern Rhodesia; and whether he will ask Sir Roy Welensky to visit London to discuss these matters.

The Prime Minister: Our consultation with the Federal Government is close, but, as the House will know, it is not our practice to reveal the nature of such confidential exchanges.
Direct Ministerial discussions will be held whenever necessary, either in London or Salisbury as may be convenient.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Prime Minister aware that it does a great deal of damage to Britain's reputation in the world to appear to be giving way to the obstinacy of Sir Roy Welensky over the issue of stationing United Nations observers on the border? Will he not make it clear that part of the foreign policy in Central Africa is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government here, and will he not say unequivocally that we accept the request of the United Nations Secretary-General to station observers on the frontier to try to ease tension there?

The Prime Minister: What we were hoping possibly to arrange was for useful discussions to take place in which some of these difficulties could be resolved.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Prime Minister say what there is to hide in this matter? Why does he not agree to this request? Will he not make it clear that the Government recognise that, both constitutionally and in our foreign relations, it is the Government in Whitehall, in Westminster, that has the responsibility here, and not a Government with very restricted powers in these matters? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last


two years of this Government, it would be rather nice if we had the Prime Minister operating in Westminster and not delegating his responsibilities to another Prime Minister in Southern Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the constitutional position is that the British Government have entrusted responsibility for external affairs to the Federal Government to the fullest extent possible consistent with the responsibility that we must continue to have in international law so long as the Federation is not a separate entity.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Prime Minister answer the second part of my Question in order to conclude these useful discussions to which he referred and to bring an end to the contradictions which have existed between pronouncements in Whitehall and pronouncements on the part of Sir Roy Welensky in Salisbury? What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to check the very strong reports that mercenaries and arms have been allowed to cross Rhodesia into Katanga?

The Prime Minister: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is another matter. I tried to answer the first part, but perhaps he did not hear what I said. I said:
Direct Ministerial discussions will be held whenever necessary, either in London or in Salisbury as may be convenient.
That was intended to reply to the suggestion that there should be a meeting of Ministers on this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister clear up the constitutional position? Would he say whether or not in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it lies within the functions and powers of Her Majesty's Government to agree to the request made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I would rather not get drawn into a constitutional discussion, but all history shows that there is a difference between constitutional rights and the wise way to exercise them.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is really a most inadequate answer. This continual sheltering behind obscurity is doing the country no good at all. Why does not

the right hon. Gentleman give us an honest answer to the question whether the Government accept their responsibilities or not?

The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman lived at that time, he would have been a supporter of Mr. Grenville or Lord North.

SMALLPOX

Mr. K. Robinson: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the out, break of smallpox.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): Five persons infected with smallpox are known to have arrived at London Airport from Pakistan between 16th December and 11th January. All five had valid international certificates of recent revaccination. So far as is known, there have been no secondary cases to date from three of these persons and only one from the fourth.
The fifth was a girl of nine, who had been successfully vaccinated in infancy. She arrived on 16th December, was admitted to the Bradford Children's Hospital on 23rd December with malaria and died on 30th December, with no clinical signs of smallpox, which was deduced on 11th January as soon as secondary cases occurred amongst her contacts in the hospital. Ten of these have been confirmed so far, and two are suspected; four have died.
All known contacts have been vaccinated and placed under medical surveillance.

Mr. Robinson: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask whether he will join us on this side in deploring the exploitation of this unfortunate outbreak in the interests of racial prejudice and in an attempt to justify the Government's Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions arising out of his statement? While we agree that the precautions now in force at points of entry seem both reasonable and adequate, may I ask him why he was so slow to apply these emergency arrangements, since the existence of the epidemic in Pakistan had been known for many


weeks and no change was made at London Airport or elsewhere until more than a week after the first diagnosed case in this country?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we in Britain do not adhere to the recommended code of procedure of the World Health Organisation? Will he consider, as normal practice in future, demanding an international vaccination certificate from all travellers, without discrimination, who come at least from endemic smallpox areas?
What precautions will the right hon. Gentleman take against the travellers who come not direct from such areas, but via European ports and European capitals, and what can he do against the risk of forged vaccination certificates?
Further, while we on this side would not support the reintroduction of compulsory vaccination and a return to the farcical situation which existed before the Vaccination Acts were repealed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we feel that both he and his predecessors have neglected their opportunities for persuading people to be vaccinated voluntarily?
When the present scare is over, will the right hon. Gentleman use every means in his power to stimulate voluntary vaccination, especially of infants? And, finally, will he confirm that there is in this country sufficient vaccine in stock to meet a real emergency should this, unfortunately, arise?

Mr. Powell: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions in the order in which he asked them.
I am not aware of any effort to exploit what is, in any case, a situation which must rightly have attracted public attention and given rise to public anxiety.
Concerning the controls on entry into this country, so far as I know all five people would have entered any other country under the controls which they operate whether or not they were applying Regulation 83 of the international agreement. The controls now in operation are believed to be more stringent than are enforced anywhere else, and they cover people entering this country from Pakistan by indirect as well as by direct routes. They were progressively

put into effect as evidence came to hand that re-vaccinations taking place at Karachi were not taking effect in an appreciable number of cases.
With regard to the policy on vaccination, the evidence of recent years is that acceptance rates have broadly been increasing, and I believe that the increased importance which is attached to immunisation, not only against smallpox but against other diseases with which we in this country are much more threatened, will help to increase the degree of immunity against smallpox.
There has at no time been a shortage of vaccine in this country generally, although sudden large demands in particular localities caused temporary difficulties which were promptly overcome. All demands are now being met in full, and over 2½ million doses have been distributed in the last week alone. Reserves and supplies in sight are large.

Dr. D. Johnson: I thank my right hon Friend for his very full statement. Is he aware that there has been no question whatsoever of a colour bar or anything like that on the part of those of us who have been raising this matter? Questions identical to those that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has asked were raised, but they were raised a week to ten days ago. Is my right hon. Friend aware that any hesitancy at London Airport properly to inspect people who came in from Pakistan has been due to fear of the accusation about this being a colour bar matter by hon. Members opposite and has been due to delay in introducing a proper health check through a Bill such as that which is at present before the House?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a complication in the problem is that the figures for vaccination have fallen largely due to the abolition of compulsory vaccination in 1948, combined with anti-vaccination propaganda prior to that in the Socialist movement—for instance, in the writings of Mr. Bernard Shaw? Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps on both those counts?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must observe that the same rules govern supplementary questions to Private Notice Questions as supplementary questions to any other


Questions. The House has much to do. We cannot have speeches.

Mr. Dugdale: The Minister referred particularly to Bradford, but can he assure the House that all necessary precautions have been taken in the Midlands and the neighbourhood of West Bromwich, where there has been a reported case of smallpox?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir, and I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising the great service which the public health authorities and the medical officers of health throughout the country have performed with such promptitude.

Mr. Gower: If, as we all hope, the present outbreak and the anxieties soon pass away, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the more stringent safeguards which he has described, not only against smallpox, but against other diseases, will be sustained at all times in the future and that they will not be overlooked?

Mr. Powell: They will certainly not be overlooked. I must, however, tell the House that I do not think that it would be reasonable or practicable, except in special circumstances, to enforce the stringent procedure which is being applied at present.

Mr. Wade: In view of the anxiety which has been felt in certain parts of the country owing to the temporary shortage of supplies of vaccine, may we have an assurance that supplies of vaccine have been available for all suspected contacts?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. The difficulties are entirely related to distribution and I have no reason to doubt that any essential purpose has not been able to be carried out at once.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is there any power to act in the case of a Pakistani seeking to enter the country if he does not have a valid international vaccination certificate? If he were to refuse vaccination. is there any power to force him to be vaccinated or to refuse him admission?

Mr. Powell: There is no power to force a person to be vaccinated. Isolation in the event of refusal of vaccination can be, and is being, imposed, although to date there has been no case

of refusal. Without notice, I would rather not say whether there are any circumstances in which, under the port health regulations, a passenger might be returned to a ship or aircraft, but in general this rests upon measures taken at the port of arrival.

Mr. McLeavy: Is the Minister aware that his tribute to the magnificent work of the doctors and nurses will be very much appreciated in the whole of Yorkshire? When this trouble has died down, will the Minister tell the House what permanent safeguards will be applied in future from a health point of view regarding immigrants to this country?

Mr. Powell: From a health point of view, there is no essential difference between one person and another entering the country and there is no reason in the history of recent years to believe that the normal safeguards which this country applies are inadequate or unsatisfactory.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister say a word about the serious delay that took place before the more stringent arrangements were introduced at London Airport and elsewhere? Will he, at the same time, confirm that although the current figure of 41 per cent. acceptances for infant vaccinations is not sufficient, it is still considerably higher than the acceptance rate when vaccination under the Vaccination Acts was compulsory?

Mr. Powell: There was great variation over those years, but it is now somewhat higher than the average for the preceding ten or fifteen years. I do not accept that there was serious delay in bringing the present measures into force, because, as I have explained, they are of great stringency and, as far as I know, are unparalleled anywhere in the world. Very clear justification and reason were required before steps were taken to put them into force.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that in Cardiff, last Wednesday afternoon, when thousands of people were offering themselves for general vaccination, the medical officer of health and others of us had to go along the queues and tell them that there was no more vaccine and that general vaccination was


to be stopped? Can the Minister imagine the difficulties with which officers of the Health Department of the Cardiff Corporation were faced in that situation? Is there now sufficient vaccine in the country and in the affected areas, such as Bradford and Cardiff, to ensure that anyone who asks for vaccination may be vaccinated in order to safeguard himself from danger?

Mr. Powell: No system of distribution can cope immediately with a sudden large and unforeseen demand in a particular place, but the quantities available are amply adequate and the distribution is rapid. It is inevitable that if there is a sudden rush steps must be taken to secure that the vaccine, in the first few hours, is available first to the cases of priority. I am, however, informed that in all cases the initial delay was rapidly overcome and that at present all demands are being met currently.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Mr. Callaghan: May I, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: We have a great deal to do.

Mr. Tiley: As I live in Bradford and the Bradford Children's Hospital is in my constituency, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say a few short sentences in connection with this grave problem.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. As far as I know—and I am under no obligation—I have worked through those hon. Members who had Questions on the Order Paper, whether they live in Bradford or elsewhere. We have a great deal to do, however, and, I am sorry to say, we must put a limit to the matter.

Mr. Tiley: Further to that point of order. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to put a new point which has not been put before.

Mr. Speaker: I have much sympathy with the hon. Member but I hope that he, too, will have sympathy. I have to consider the interests of the House as a whole and we really have a lot to do.

Mr. Tiley: In view of the unsatisfactory answers, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS (PROPOSED MERGER)

Mr. Jay: (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a public inquiry into the effects on the public interest of the proposed merger between Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I fully recognise the interest of the House in this important matter. The House will realise, however, that the issues involved are complex. I am not in a position to make a statement today, but hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Mr. Jay: Will the President of the Board of Trade agree that he cannot leave the matter like that very long, as this is the largest and most important merger ever proposed in British industry and has aroused a great deal of opposition within the industry and anxiety on both sides of the House? Can he tell us how soon he will make his statement and whether it will contain definite proposals by the Government?

Mr. Erroll: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House generally that I fully appreciate the importance of the issues and also their complexity. I hope to be able to make a statement on Thursday, but if this is not possible I shall try to do so as soon as possible next week. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish me to anticipate my statement in any way.

Sir C. Osborne: Before my right hon. Friend makes his statement, may I ask him to look at the position from the point of view of exporters? In view of the fact that Courtaulds asked I.C.I. to co-operate in the production of a new synthetic fibre, which ultimately became Courtelle, which is the most rapidly increasing man-made fibre in the industry, that the supply of raw materials for making this fibre has been coming previously from I.C.I. and that Courtaulds now can buy it at 50 per cent. of the price that I.C.I. is charging, and since control of the raw material is such an important factor in the price of the yarn and this will affect the exporter, will my right hon. Friend consider the matter from that point of view?

Mr. Erroll: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the matters of which we must take account in considering the matter.

Mrs. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the workers in the industry, of whom there are some thousands in my constituency, would very warmly welcome an impartial, independent inquiry into the facts put before both sides, and that we have reason to think that Courtaulds have no objection to such an inquiry?

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing me of the interest among the workers in her constituency.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did not the President of the Board of Trade tell us shortly before the Christmas Recess that he had no powers to intervene in this matter? Are we to take it from his remarks this afternoon that he has had second thoughts on that point, and are we to conclude that the Government are now seriously considering the appointment of a committee of inquiry as requested by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Erroll: No, I am not going to be drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him to await my statement.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In considering this matter will my right hon. Friend take careful consideration of the letter in The Times today, representing the views of the users of these fibres? Would he further understand that many of us believe in competition?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that I have read the letter in The Times this morning very carefully.

Mr. Albu: Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that it is not a question whether this merger should or should not take place? It is by no means the first and will probably not be the last. The question at issue is whether the public should or should not understand the conditions under which it takes place and the economic arguments for and against it, so that the public can judge, because in the end it is for the public, as represented through their Members of Parliament, to decide whether a merger of this sort should

take place. As this is likely to be the growing trend in these matters, they must be absolutely open and above board. When the President of the Board of Trade gives his final consideration to it, will he bear these points in mind?

Mr. Erroll: I shall certainly note what the hon. Member has said and see how far it can be covered in my statement.

Mr. Thorpe: As a result of the informal discussions which the President of the Board of Trade has had with the leaders of these two companies, can he say with confidence that nothing irrevocable will have occurred by Thursday, when he is to make his statement? Can he also say whether or not he has received any assurances that nothing irrevocable will happen till such time as the House has considered the matter?

Mr. Erroll: I can say that nothing irrevocable, as matters stand at present, will have taken place by next Thursday, because if the matter takes the normal course it will be for I.C.I. to circulate its offer to Courtaulds' shareholders. The preparation of the documents will necessarily take some time. It is, I gather, a matter of some three weeks rather than a few days. Therefore, I would not expect anything irrevocable to take place by next Thursday.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind before he makes his statement, whether on Thursday or early next week, that there are a great many Members of this House who believe that where monopolies turn out in the end to be either inevitable or desirable they should be publicly owned and publicly controlled? Will he take this into account in whatever statement he makes?

Mr. Erroll: I would merely say that I note what the hon. Member says.

RAILWAYS (WAGE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Strauss: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport what communication he has sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wages negotiations.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): As the text of the communication to which the right hon. Member refers is a lengthy one, and has already appeared in full in the Press, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The main purpose of this communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation, and the railways themselves, are faced at the present time.

Mr. Strauss: Does not this mean, as it appears to mean, that the Guillebaud Committee's principle has disappeared and that in future the railwaymen will be penalised by the fact that the railways have suffered losses for which they are not responsible?
Secondly, as the claims of the railway unions have been before the Commission for many months, why did the right hon. Gentleman intervene only 24 hours before the day arranged for the Commission and the unions to meet?
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman's intervention at this late stage indicate, as it appears to, that he is not prepared to trust Dr. Beeching, whom he has recently appointed because of his wide knowledge of industrial matters, to negotiate prudently in this matter in the interests of the railways and the nation?
Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's action in preventing the normal discussion from taking place between employer and employee on this wage claim is unprecedented, and that this disruption of long-established negotiating practice is bound to infuriate the union members and make it far more difficult to reach an acceptable settlement of this dispute?

Mr. Marples: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question referred to the Guillebaud principle. The Prime Minister said in the House:
The Government accept the objective underlying the Report of the Guillebaud Committee—that fair and reasonable wages should be paid to those engaged in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 643.]

That does not mean that after a mathematical exercise in comparability that is that. The Prime Minister never said that.
The second part of the supplementary question was whether I trusted Dr. Beeching or not. That does not really arise, because it is not a question of agreement or disagreement with Dr. Beeching. It is merely the fact that the Government felt it right and proper to make their statement frankly in the light of the economic circumstances of today, because not only have we to consider each wage claim in isolation but we have to consider what will happen to the economy as a whole if all these wage increases are granted and they are greater than the amount of productivity which we have from year to year.
Therefore, I think that the Government have been frank in setting their view before the final stage of the negotiating machinery was arrived at, which is arbitration. All we ask is that when they go to arbitration the arbitrators will take account of what is the Government's view.

Mr. G. Brown: Are there not two things involved in the Minister's statement? First, that he has decided to prevent the negotiating machinery from being allowed to proceed through its normal processes, and secondly, that he has laid down the conditions under which arbitration can apply, meaning that it is no longer free arbitration? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the only conclusion the workers can draw from it is that they should proceed to industrial disputes as the only way to settle their problems?

Mr. Marples: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on either point. First, the established machinery can go ahead. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. The Government have not laid down any terms or conditions. What they have done is to state what they think about the economy in general and what they think the arbitrators should take into account.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that? What was the point of his intervention 24 hours before the negotiators were to meet when he issued an instruction, or ukase, that the employees' side was not to make an offer? Is it not clear


from that that the negotiating machinery cannot proceed, since he has insisted that any reference to arbitration shall be limited in a way which he has stated in advance? How can that be regarded as free?
Will the Minister please consider the consequences of his action, because if there is no free negotiation and no free arbitration, what is there left for those who have a claim to urge beyond seeking to enforce it by power? Is that what the Government say that they want the workers to do?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has based his supplementary question on two quite false assumptions. The first is that there was an instruction of any sort to anybody and the second is that there was any mention in the statement, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read, that Dr. Beeching or anybody else is not to make an offer. All we wished to do was to say what was the Government's point of view, as freely, clearly and frankly as we possibly could, on what we think is the position.

Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that he himself is misrepresenting the situation? Is he not aware that he has instructed the Transport Commission that this matter should go to arbitration, which is the second stage, before the first stage is completed? Secondly, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, what assurance can he give to the railway workers that the Government themselves will accept what the arbitration tribunal will give them? Does he not realise that he is making it completely impossible for the trade union leaders to say to the workers "You must accept this", and that he is taking away from the trade union leaders power over the workers in so far that they will be able to take power into their own hands because of the Minister's high-handed action?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but the hon. Member is wrong. He said that the Government had instructed the Chairman of the Commission. They have done no such thing. The last sentence of the communication reads:
…the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

Hon. Members: That is an instruction.

Mr. Marples: We could have put instructed" if we wished, but we did not. We "asked".
As to the second part of the supplementary question, whether the Government would accept arbitration, under the agreement which was signed by the Transport Commission and the unions neither side is formally bound to accept the results of arbitration. Just as the unions have the right to reserve their position, we as a Government have a right to reserve ours.

Mr. Monslow: Is the Minister not aware that responsible railway trade union leaders have taken all possible steps during these negotiations to obviate any unofficial action being taken? Is he not now aware that the decision which he has taken will be disastrous and that it is certainly no way to create what is necessary at the moment and what we regard as essential in industry—the right industrial human relations? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that pending reversal of this decision he can expect difficulty within the industry?

Mr. Marples: I do not see why that should arise at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, because paragraph 17 of the agreement signed by the unions and the Transport Commission reads:
In no circumstance shall there be any withdrawal of labour or any attempt on the part of the staff to hamper the proper working of the Railway until any matter in dispute has been submitted through the proper channels to the higher Management…
The final stage in the negotiating machinery was this arbitration and the Government have suggested that Dr. Beeching should go there to avoid a deadlock.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has disrupted completely the agreed scheme of negotiating machinery such as has operated since 1921 and that never in the history of the railways since then has there been an action such as has been taken by the Minister in this case? Is the Minister aware that he has suggested arbitration, which need not be accepted by either side, before the negotiating machinery on wages has been exhausted and when either side can go or both can agree to go to arbitration?
Is the Minister further aware that he has short-circuited all that and that it is inevitable that he will now be confronted with great difficulty on the railways? Is he aware that the railway trade unions have enormous difficulty in applying restraint on their men not to take unofficial action?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but I have not altered the third stage of negotiation at all, and that is arbitration.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the railways and the Transport Commission as a whole are at present losing about £140 million a year? Is he further aware that those workers in other industries who have shown restraint in the last few months in holding back their claims would not want to see an immediate settlement in favour of the railway workers at present? Is he aware that a large body of opinion is behind him that independent arbitration on this question is far the best way to settle it?

Mr. Marples: The main thing that the Government were seeking to do was to place their point of view about the economy as a whole before the nation so that it could be taken into account in settling these wage difficulties.

Mr. Ross: Why not address the nation then, instead of the Transport Commission?

Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware that in passing the last Transport Act the Government gave a pledge to the House to respect the existing railway negotiating machinery? Is he further aware that his action yesterday is a complete interference with that machinery? Does he not appreciate that it is nothing short of nonsense to try to pretend to the House that he has not interfered with it? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and Dr. Beeching will tell him if he does not know, that his action has prevented the normal functioning of the machinery. What action does he expect the railwaymen to take in the light of that?

Mr. Marples: I hope that both sides will go to arbitration, as the Government have suggested.

Mr. G. Brown: Since the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly says that he has

not issued instructions, may I ask two simple questions? Is the Chairman of the Transport Commission free to make an offer and, if so, if the railway unions accept the offer, is he free to enter into agreement?

Mr. Marples: The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has not received any instructions and, therefore, he is a free agent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The point is that if any award is made my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to raise that money by taxation. Whatever offer is made there is the question whether and how it can be implemented.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have so much to do that we cannot pursue this now.

Following is the communication:

The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.

In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.

The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962. when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.

Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before 1st April, 1962.

In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned


above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.

In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961, has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.

The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.

Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before 1st April, 1962.

In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

BRITISH HONDURAS

Mr. G. M. Thomson: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the armed invasion of British Honduras territory by Guatemala.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): On the 21st January, about 30 armed Guatemalan civilians entered the Toledo district of British Honduras. In the village of Pueblo Viejo they are reported to have burnt the Union Jack and hoisted the Guatemalan flag. Some of them went on to the village of San Antonio and beyond.
Troops of the Royal Hampshire Regiment arrived in Punta Gorda yesterday morning and went inland to deal with the situation. This morning it is reported that the band has broken up and for the most part is returning or has returned to Guatemala. The search for any of the persons remaining continues.
Her Majesty's Minister in Guatemala City has been instructed to make representations immediately, and to ask for an assurance that there will be no repetition of such an incident.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is at present in the Caribbean? Will he consider recommending him to pay a visit to British Honduras to investigate this matter on the spot and to reassure the people of Honduras that we are concerned to preserve their right to self-determination and to seek a peaceful solution to this very old problem?

Mr. Fraser: I hope that what I have said will give the people of British Honduras this assurance. Meanwhile, it is a matter for the Foreign Office to make proper approaches to the Government of Guatemala to ensure that there is no repetition of such incursions or incidents on our frontier.

MR. BRAGANZA (DETENTION)

Mr. Stonehouse: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will admit into this country Mr. Aires Braganza, an Indian subject and citizen of the Commonwealth, formerly of Goa, who is now detained at London Airport.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): This is a case which presents some difficulties, but after reviewing all the circumstances my right hon. Friend has decided to give instructions that Mr. Braganza should be allowed to enter the country.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask how it was that this arose in the way it did on Sunday, namely, that the immigration


officials at London Airport refused admittance to this man although he was carrying a valid Indian passport?

Mr. Renton: The doubt arose because the last time he was here he carried a Portuguese passport. He came here as a student. He did not study and was eventually asked to leave the country.

Mr. Brockway: How was it that this man, carrying Indian documents, was permitted to leave London Airport, was allowed to enter a West German port, and, when he came back from there, was refused admission to this country? How could such a thing possibly have occurred?

Mr. Renton: I am not aware of all the facts which the hon. Gentleman mentions, but now that he has referred to them I will consider the matter.

Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of all these facts, why does he make such facetious remarks to the House?

Mr. Renton: The decision which has been made has been made on the facts as known to us. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has produced some further facts which do not alter the present decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I should like to make a statement about business.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House to know that the business proposed for next Monday, 29th January, is a debate on London local government, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1562.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this important and complex subject really merits a two-day and not a one-day debate? Is he aware that, although we want, of course, to have a debate on this subject, we do not regard it as nearly as urgent as a number of other subjects, some of which have been raised in Private Notice Questions today? Therefore, I ask whether he

would reconsider the matter and discuss through the usual channels changing the business for next Monday?

Mr. Macleod: If the Leader of the Opposition, who has a number of Supply Days at his disposal at this time or Session, would like to put forward alternative proposals through the usual channels we would, of course, look at them. On the assumption that the business stands at the moment as I have announced it, I think that we could have an excellent debate and take the House's view of this matter in one day. If there is a general wish in the House—it sometimes happens—that the time should be extended by, say, an hour, that is, again, a matter which we can discuss.

Sir L. Heald: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration? It seems very short notice. Certainly, the Surrey Members, who are very much concerned with this matter, will be very surprised to hear—I do not see them all here this afternoon—that it is proposed to debate this subject on Monday. It is hoped to have a discussion about the matter with the county experts and authorities, and it will be impossible to arrange that before Monday. I am sure that we shall all be very much better prepared to discuss the matter, and that it will possibly be more reasonable in some ways, if we could have an opportunity of being fully instructed beforehand. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.

Mr. Macleod: I entirely understand that point of view. I am as much affected by these proposals as any other hon. Member of the House. But, of course, it is also desirable that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should explain the Government's point of view in relation to these proposals at an early date. The House will not, of course, be asked in this debate to take final decisions. It will merely be asked to take note of the White Paper. There will be a considerable number of discussions following that, and also, no doubt, a number of inquiries. I should have thought that it was the general view of the House that it would be as well to take the sense of the House on the general proposals at a fairly early date.

Mr. S. Silverman: While the right hon. Gentleman is discussing business questions, could he give the House any idea when he proposes to bring forward his threatened Motions on a Guillotine for the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Army Reserve Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this limited business statement, we cannot have a general discussion about other business, else we shall be here too long.

Mr. F. Harris: May I support the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)? I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, before the Recess, when this matter was to be debated, and the reply that he gave me seemed to indicate that it would not come forward with the undue haste with which it appears to be coming forward on Monday. Many of us want quite considerable discussions and consultations to take place before we debate the matter. If it is his intention to get the views and opinions of hon. Members, surely it is better to wait and obtain them when hon. Members have had an opportunity of full consultation with their authorities.

Mr. Macleod: What I said in reply to my hon. Friend on Thursday, 30th November, was:
We shall certainly discuss it in the House, but I am sure that it should not be this side of the Christmas Recess. There are many hon. Members who want to study it before they express their views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 629.]
That is getting on for two months ago.
There have been a considerable number of local discussions on these matters. I shall be glad to consider the matter if the Opposition wish to have discussions through the usual channels, but I should have thought that, without commitment—we are asking the House merely to take note of the White Paper—there would be considerable advantage in having at this early stage the Minister of Housing and Local Government expound the details of the Government's attitude towards these proposals.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be quite a feeling on both sides of the

House that the debate would be rather premature if we were to take it as soon as next week and that this really does not fit in with what I recollect he told the House a little before Christmas—at least, the general impression that he gave us? Did I understand him to suggest that we might discuss the matter with a view to substituting a Supply Day on Monday and taking the debate on London government a little later? Will he also bear in mind later what I said about the desirability of a two-day debate when hon. Members have had a chance to study and consult on these tremendously important issues?

Mr. Macleod: I shall be glad to discuss the possibility of substitution through the usual channels, but I cannot undertake, though I have said that I would be prepared to consider whether we should discuss it next Monday or at a later date, to offer two days of Government time for the subject, although an extension of time might be permitted.

Dame Irene Ward: If my right hon. Friend finds himself in any difficulty about next Monday's debate, is he aware that the North-East Coast is waiting to hear about the Boundary Commission's Report on its problems? If he really wants to discuss local government then, would it not be possible to tell us what is to happen to us?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot tell my hon. Friend what is to happen to her at this precise moment.

EXPORT CONTRACTS (FINANCING)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With permission, I wish to inform the House that as a result of discussions between the Bank of England and leading banks and insurance companies, details are being announced today of new arrangements for the finance of export contracts which are covered by a direct bank guarantee given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The London Clearing Banks and the Scottish Banks have agreed to provide finance for export contracts at a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. for terms between three and five years, while a group of member companies of the British Insurance Association have agreed to lend up


to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. where finance in excess of five years is needed.
The effect of this arrangement is twofold. First, it means that medium-term finance for exports will now be available at fixed rates more favourable than the present rates. Second, it means that substantial funds will be available to fill the gap between the period of up to five years post-shipment, which the banks are normally prepared to cover, and the longer terms which are normally more suitable for insurance companies.
These arrangements represent a notable advance on the present position. For the first time the banks as well as the insurance companies will adopt a general practice of providing export finance at a fived rate, irrespective of fluctuations in Bank Rate. Moreover, the rates will be markedly better than those obtainable at present. Thus, whereas bank credit would at present generally cost 1 per cent. above Bank Rate and would change as Bank Rate changed, it will, if it is provided under these arrangements, cost 5½ per cent. fixed. Only, therefore, if Bank Rate were to fall to 4 per cent. or lower would the normal overdraft rate be better than the rate now proposed; and even then the borrower might well prefer 5½ per cent. fixed to 5 per cent, fluctuating with Bank Rate.
The participation of the insurance companies in these arrangements will not only, as I have said, provide a significant amount of longer-term finance, but will also ensure that it is available at about 1 per cent. less than is at present the case. They are to set up a special company to handle this business for them.
These arrangements are to run for a period of five years in the first instance. The Government warmly welcome the action of the banks and insurance companies in making them possible. I hope that other institutions, including, for example, those responsible for pension funds, will feel able in time to participate, so increasing the total amount of finance available.

Mr. Mitchison: I have three questions to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If this means that the Lazard Consortium, formed in April with the banks advancing, in that case,

up to seven years, has broken down, or has proved insufficient, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether that situation has arisen over a question of interest or over a question of finding enough money?
Secondly, is it not the position that, if the Bank Rate were anything like what it was before the right hon. and learned Gentleman's emergency measures, exporters would be paying a higher rate of interest under this arrangement than they would be paying on the fixed rate and, therefore, is this not merely a measure for protecting exporters against the Chancellor's own emergency measures and against the Government's continual use of the Bank Rate as a weapon in their financial arrangements?
Thirdly, while we welcome any help that can be given to exporters, and see the reason for it, does this mean that the Chancellor is to do nothing about other suggestions that have been made—such as that, for instance, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for a central export agency to help small exporters in the exporting and marketing of their products, or for arrangements for dealing with those trades whose reluctance to export is extraordinarily marked?

Mr. Lloyd: These new arrangements are meant to improve upon and to supplement existing arrangements. It is not the case that even if the Bank Rate were what it was before I introduced the emergency measures these arrangements would not be advantageous. They will be advantageous even at a time when the Bank Rate is 4½ per cent. This represents a definite step forward. It marks definite progress. The help to exporters is that they will be able to have fixed rates for a period of years. The other important point is that, for the first time, the insurance companies are coming in for the period of from five to ten years.
Certainly, the other proposals mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be looked at. These arrangements do not exclude a variety of other proposals which are being discussed.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether a switching of banking and insurance funds on


this scale for export financing means that there will be more limited facilities at home, particularly in the City of London, for money for the large speculative operations that have been going on for some time?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it is for me to speculate on that position. These arrangements are, for me, a welcome diversion of funds for export purposes.

Sir J. Duncan: While welcoming the statement, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make it clear that there is no element of Government subsidy in this, so that there will be no reason for foreign countries to extend export credit facilities to their nationals?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the attention of the House. There is no element of public subsidy in these arrangements. That is an important point to their advantage.

Mr. Jay: While these rates may perhaps be lower than they were previously under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's régime, does not he agree that they are still higher than those in many of our industrial competitor countries? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, during our last debate on this subject, promised to look into this matter of interest rates. As they still remain a handicap on our exports, cannot he look again at this matter from that point of view? Even if he cannot change his whole interest rate policy, cannot he at least make it not hamper our exports when compared with other countries?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that these arrangements will put our exporters in a reasonably competitive position. There are some countries where interest rates for exports are cheaper than in other countries, but I should point out that in those countries the interest rates for home investment are very much higher. It is quite untrue to say that at the present time we are overall, comparatively, a very high interest rate country.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by heavy industry, par

ticularly the shipbuilding industry, which often has to face interest rates as much as 2 or 3 per cent. higher than those in other countries? May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the figure of £100 million is sufficient for large capital items which are financed for more than five years?

Mr. Lloyd: I am advised that this sum of money will go a long way to meet the need. As I have already said, I hope that other institutions, including those responsible for pension funds, will in time be able to participate and add to the £100 million.

Mr. Albu: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that there is no element of subsidy in this mean that his request to other institutions to contribute is an invitation to pensioners to subsidise British exports?

Mr. Lloyd: Not at all. I am really putting this forward as a suggestion for the wise use of funds available. I would hope that those responsible for the management of pension funds may find this a suitable rate of interest to earn on their funds, and that they may use their funds for this purpose.

INDONESIA (SUSPENSION OF ARMS SUPPLIES)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on arms for Indonesia.
Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned by the dangerous tension between Indonesia and the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea. It is the firm hope of Her Majesty's Government that a negotiated settlement will be reached and they are supporting the steps being taken to this end. They are accordingly most anxious not to do anything at this delicate stage which might increase tension in the area or in any way add to the possibility of armed conflict.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided, as a temporary measure and until the situation over West New Guinea has clarified, that, apart from completing an outstanding order for


ground radar, they must suspend the export of arms and military equipment from Britain to Indonesia.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all recognise that the fact that these shipments have been going on until the last few hours has been the result of muddle rather than malice on the part of the Foreign Office, and that there is no intention to exacerbate the situation in the Far East? In view of the fact that this sort of thing is always happening, as was evidenced by other matters before Christmas—for instance, the Swiss Agreement and the case of the Swedish newspapers—will the right hon. Gentleman have an inquiry undertaken into the efficiency of his Department to see how this sort of situation can come about?
In view of the great concern about this situation, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear that they strongly support the efforts made by U Thant, the acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, to mediate in this matter?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We strongly support the efforts made by U Thant in this case and will do everything we can to assist them. We hope that they come to a speedy and successful conclusion.
I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by his accusation of muddle in this matter. The basis on which arms have been supplied to Indonesia for the past few years has been perfectly well understood. As far as I know, neither he nor his right hon. Friends have challenged it. If he is referring to the question of two aircraft which have been delivered to Indonesia recently, the facts are that, at the time of the naval incident on 15th January which has led to the Government's decision, these two aircraft were already the property of the Government of Indonesia, and, in weighing up the matter, Her Majesty's Government have decided that, as this was the case, the aircraft should be delivered to Indonesia. That was the reason for that decision. There is no muddle whatever.
If the right hon. Gentleman is ever so fortunate as to hold office in the Foreign Office, he will be proud of the efficiency of the service he receives.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that the Foreign

Office knew all along, right from the time when this West Irian problem became an acute issue, long before Christmas, that these shipments were continuing and that it did nothing about it until the action today? Is he saying that the Foreign Office decided to allow the shipments to continue until today? As on Boxing Day the Ministry of Defence moved so fast in view of a rumour about Kuwait, without any evidence, why has it taken so long to act in this case?

Mr. Heath: The problem of West New Guinea has been a problem of tension for many years, not just for the past few weeks. In these cases it is always difficult to decide whether Her Majesty's Government should supply arms in a limited manner to the Government concerned. The general view on both sides of the House has been that, rather than exert pressure of the kind which automatically leads the Government concerned to get its arms from the Soviet bloc, the Western Powers should continue to supply arms to Indonesia. That situation remained until the incident of violence on 15th January.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Did the conditions for the supply of British arms to Indonesia, which he mentioned, include an assurance that they would not be used for aggressive purposes?

Mr. Heath: As my hon. Friend knows, members of the Indonesian Government have repeatedly given assurances in public, not only to our own Government but to the Australian Government, that they would not try to solve this problem by force.

RAILWAYS (WAGE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Strauss: I seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the disruptive intervention of the Minister of Transport in the negotiations between the British Transport Commission and the railway unions.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) asks leave to


move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance, namely,
the disruptive intervention of the Minister of Transport in the negotiations between the British Transport Commission and the railway unions.
I would like some help about the facts. Is it not the fact that the relevant parties are meeting today to discuss whatever it is they discuss?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): It might assist you and the House, Mr. Speaker, if I say that the Transport Commission and the unions are due to meet this afternoon to discuss the matter.

Mr. Strauss: The unions and the Commission are meeting because they arranged to meet, but, quite plainly, when they meet both will be aware that they will have to adjourn, because the Commission has said that instead of there being discussions there is to be arbitration.

Mr. Speaker: I follow the argument, but it presents a difficulty for the Chair. I have no doubt that the appropriate or inappropriate character of the epithet "disruptive" is a matter in issue, so I cannot treat that as something definite. I assume that at the moment no one is in a position to say, with sufficient definition to assist the Chair, what the effect of the intervention is, or will be, while the parties are actually meeting. No doubt that is a matter for argument between the two sides of the House.
I cannot find anything approaching a precedent for allowing an application of this kind while the parties are still in apparently active discussion. I am definitely not ruling about it, in order that the right hon. Gentleman should hear what I am saying in case he should want to submit something about it. At present, it appears that the parties are meeting—for what reason it would not

be right for me to speculate. While they are, the effect of the Minister's intervention would seem to be quite indefinite from my point of view.

Mr. Strauss: Supposing it is found that, as a result of the Minister's intervention, discussions are abruptly brought to an end and no effective meeting takes place today, would I be in order in submitting to you tomorrow, Sir, a similar Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I would rather rule about that when the occasion arises, that is to say, tomorrow, in the light of the circumstances then. I hope that nothing I say will give any encouragement to anybody to think that some disruptive process is going on. I do not mean that. I would not like by contrast to have committed myself to saying that this is the only point on which it may be that this application would have to be rejected today. My view is that in present circumstances, for the reason I have indicated, I should not put the matter to the House.

Mr. Albu: May I put to you a further point which is relevant to the difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker? I gather that if the Minister had given a direction which had made it quite clear what the actions of the Commission were to be, that would have been a definite matter on which you could have ruled, but that you find yourself in difficulty because the Minister has given only advice and so the matter is still open, as it were. May I put it to you that that is not the case? The Minister's advice has been shown time and time again, for instance, by a Select Committee to be equivalent to giving a direction to the board of a nationalised industry.

Mr. Speaker: I have not been proceeding on the kind of distinction which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has in mind. I am sorry if I did not make myself plain.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.37 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is designed to effect a number of changes in the administration of criminal justice in the courts of England and Wales. It would not be right to describe the changes as revolutionary; but they are important. As the majority of them will have the effect of expediting the trial of criminal charges, I hope that they will meet with the approval of the whole House.
The changes are based on the recommendations of an Inter-departmental Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Streatfeild. That Committee was appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has always taken a keen interest in this subject. Its Report was presented to Parliament in February, last year. I think that it is an indication of the thoroughness with which it did its work that we are able to bring to the House a Measure giving legislative effect to those of its recommendations which require legislation within less than twelve months of the Report's presentation.
I should like to express our gratitude to the Chairman and members of that Committee for the excellent work which they have done. Governments are from time to time criticised for failing to act on the recommendations of the committees which they set up. Indeed, it is sometimes alleged that Governments set up committees merely to avoid taking action. No such charge or criticism can be made of the Government in this instance.
The Committee's terms of reference fell into two parts. It was asked to review the present arrangements in England and Wales for bringing persons to trial and, no less important, to review the arrangements
for providing the courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders, and to

consider whether, having regard to the desirability of ensuring that cases are brought before the courts and disposed of expeditiously, any changes are required in these arrangements or in those for the dispatch of business by the courts.
The Committee made some ten recommendations under the second part of its terms of reference, and several of those ten recommendations were sub-divided. In all, there were some 25 separate recommendations that fell to be considered by the Government. The Government welcome and endorse the Committee's approach to its terms of reference as it is reflected in these recommendations, and we are now studying ways and means of giving effect to them.
Only one of them, however, requires legislation, and that is dealt with in Clause 14, the effect of which will be to enable a court of assize or quarter sessions which adjourns a case to enable inquiries to be made in order to determine the most suitable method of dealing with a convicted person to order the case to be resumed by another competent court if this will enable it to be disposed of more quickly.
Under the existing procedure there is difficulty about adjourning a case after conviction before a court of quarter sessions which sits four times a year, and sometimes in doing so after conviction at assizes. A three months' adjournment to the next quarter sessions may be unnecessarily long and if the case is tried at the last town on an assize, the adjournment may have to be of too short a period to serve a useful purpose.
The difficulty with regard to quarter sessions will be largely overcome by the proposals to which I shall refer later of having what I may call "continuous" quarter sessions, but the Streatfeild Committee felt, and we feel, that the court of assize or quarter sessions should have power, if it will enable the case to be dealt with more speedily, to send it for sentence to another competent court.
I have mentioned this Clause first, not because I think it is entitled to pride of place, and still less because I wish to brush it aside, but to clear the way for the review of the other provisions of the Bill which form its main content.
These provisions give effect to the recommendations made by the Committee under the first of the two heads of its terms of reference, namely, to review


the present arrangements in England and Wales for bringing to trial persons charged with criminal offences, by which, of course, is meant trial at courts of assize and quarter sessions.
Under this head the main preoccupation of the Committee was with the length of time which accused persons spend awaiting trial and sentence, and the Committee had before it the results of an inquiry by the Home Office Research Unit which disclosed that in some cases these periods are at present far too long.
The figures which the Streatfeild Committee give in its Report relate to 1957, but, as the Committee says, it is not thought that the general pattern has changed significantly since then. These figures, which are set out on pages 4 and 5 of the Report, show that the average waiting period before trial was five weeks; but it can range from less than two weeks to over four months.
In 1957 over 1,200 people waited more than three months, and 400 for more than four months before being tried.
Forty per cent. of those committed for trial are committed in custody and not on bail. Of those committed, 76 per cent. pleaded guilty at their trial. Of the remaining 24 per cent. who pleaded not guilty, 7 per cent., that is to say, 1,700, were committed in custody. Of these 1,700, 300 were subsequently acquitted after having spent varying lengths of time in custody awaiting trial.
We can all agree that the time spent in awaiting trial should be reduced so far as is consistent with the need to secure a fair and proper trial and proper administration. I refer to administration, because, as the Streatfeild Committee points out
a criminal court is a complex mechanism and careful arrangement of the business is necessary to ensure that the work is done with efficiency and economy. A trial involves not only a court with the necessary jurisdiction but also jurors (who have to be summoned some time in advance) witnesses, counsel and solicitors, prison escorts, police and court officials.
Some delay in bringing a man to trial after the committal proceedings have concluded is usually necessary, for the defence wants time to prepare the

defence after it has heard the case for the prosecution at the magistrates' court, and sometimes the prosecution too wants time to do further work. But the delay should, in my submission, be kept to the minimum, for, as the Streatfeild Committee points out,
all the benefits which flow from justice being done will be more potent if it is done quickly.
The longer the wait, the staler the evidence and the more clouded the recollection of witnesses. Finally, it is in principle undesirable that the accused, whether in the event he prove guilty or not, should be kept waiting for the court's verdict any longer than is necessary.
The Streatfeild Committee came to the conclusion, which the Government accept, that the object to be aimed at was a procedure which resulted in no man being kept waiting, save in the most exceptional cases, more than eight weeks. For this purpose the Committee recommended changes both in the procedure of the courts and in their jurisdiction.
The changes the Committee has recommended in procedure derive from the conclusion, reached in the light of the evidence presented to it, that the waiting period of eight weeks was in fact as a general rule achieved in respect of proceedings brought before what may be called the courts in continuous session, that is to say, the Central Criminal Court, London and Middlesex Sessions, and the two Crown Courts at Liverpool and Manchester.
The Committee reached the conclusion, natural in the circumstances, that similar results would follow if assizes and quarter sessions were, so far as was practicable, also converted into courts which sat throughout the year. It did not, however, take what might seem to be the obvious course, namely, of recommending an extension of the Crown Courts.
I do not want on this occasion to go in any detail into the objections which the Committee saw to that system or to balance them against its undoubted merits. I will only say that a radical extension of the system—and a radical extension would have been inevitable—would have involved discarding the traditional assize system in the form in which we know it; and it did not seem to the Government that so drastic a


step as this was necessary if the assize system itself could be reorganised and brought up to date. We are satisfied that this reorganisation is practicable. Indeed, arrangements have already been made for revised itineraries to be brought into force during the next legal term, provided, of course, that this Bill has by then been brought into force.
The arrangements that have been made require the legislative changes which are made by the first three Clauses of the Bill. First, Clause 1 increases the number of High Court judges by adding five to the present statutory maximum of 48. It is not the intention that all the five judges to be appointed by virtue of this provision should be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division for the purpose of working what my noble Friend in another place called the new Streatfeild itineraries, or even that all five vacancies should necessarily be filled at once. But, as my hon. Friend said, it is important that there should be some reserve for contingencies, and that he should be in a position to take account of the needs of the other Divisions of the High Court, in particular the Divorce Division, where, as the House knows, it is the intention to replace the divorce commissioners by High Court judges as opportunity occurs.
Clause 2 provides for the appointment of assistant clerks of assize which will be necessary when the circuits are split into two. Clause 3 enables a high sheriff to be appointed for the Sheffield Assize Division which will be known as Hallamshire, and the need for it springs from the new arrangements which have been made for the assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit, as a result of which Leeds and Sheffield Assizes will be sitting simultaneously.
The procedural changes proposed for courts of quarter session are made by Clause 4, the principal effect of which is to enable those courts to be free to arrange their sittings to the best possible advantage and to dispose of cases with the least possible delay. The only condition—I will not call it a restriction—to which they will be subject is the provision in subsection (1) that they should be held at least four times a year. Although these courts will, therefore, sit as often as is necessary—some may even be virtually in continual session—it will continue to be appropriate for them to

retain their ancient title of "quarter sessions".
The other procedural changes designed to expedite the trial of persons committed by magistrates' courts are contained in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill, which deal with the committal itself. Clause 12 implements two recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee. Subsection (1) permits committal of a case to a sitting of assizes or quarter sessions already in progress. Subsection (2) extends the power of magistrates to commit a case to assizes instead of quarter sessions so as to include among the grounds entitling them to take this course the fact that the trial is likely to be a long one.
Clause 13 extends the procedure known as the "convenient court procedure", in the first place by extending it to committals for sentence and in the second place by imposing on the magistrates the duty to commit to a more convenient court if the case would be unlikely to be dealt with within eight weeks if it were committed, in accordance with the general rule, to the assizes or quarter sessions for their area.
I have now dealt with the principal Clauses of the Bill altering the procedure relating to committal to assizes and quarter sessions and to trial at assizes and quarter sessions. I will now turn to the provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts.
These provisions are contained in Clause 10 and the Second and Third Schedules of the Bill. Their effect is to give quarter sessions jurisdiction to try some offences at present triable only at assizes, thus relieving the work of the assizes; and to give courts of summary jurisdiction power to try cases at present triable only on indictment, thus relieving both assizes and quarter sessions. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, and I do not think it necessary for me, at this stage, to go in any detail into the reasons, set out in the Committee's Report, for the changes which it is proposed to make.
These, then, are the principal changes which it is proposed to make in the procedure and jurisdiction of the criminal courts. The Bill also contains a number of miscellaneous reforms of the law. Clause 5, for example, provides that no


one may be elected chairman of county quarter sessions unless he is legally qualified, and Clause 7 deals with the appointment of deputy recorders and assistant recorders, enlarging the power of the recorder to make such appointments. Clause 8 changes the law relating to the remuneration of recorders, chairmen of County of London Sessions, and their deputies and assistants. One feature which I am sure will be particularly welcome to those Members of the House who hold recorderships is that the onerous duty of paying their deputies will no longer fall upon them but on the council of the borough concerned.
I should also mention, in this part of the Bill, two Clauses which do not follow recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, although they are not in any way inconsistent with them. The first of these is Clause 6, which transfers from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chancellor the responsibility for regulating the arrangements for sittings of quarter sessions for the County of London and is a natural consequence of the changes made by Clause 4 in relation to other quarter sessions. The second is Clause 9, which enables the Lord Chancellor to remove a recorder, chairman or deputy-chairman of London Sessions for misbehaviour. These appointments are held during good behaviour and the power of removal therefore is not in substance a new one.
Finally, there are two minor but useful reforms of the law, in Clause 11, which generalises the power conferred on magistrates' courts to resume proceedings as examining justices after they have begun to try an indictable offence summarily, and Clause 15, which provides that a sentence imposed by a court of assize shall take effect from the day on which it is imposed, unless the court otherwise directs, instead of from the first day of the assize, as is now the case.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a consequential or formal character, but I should mention that special provisions are being made for the allocation of costs where a case is committed from the area of one court into that of another. That is Clause 16.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Bill was designed to effect

changes which would have the result of expediting the trial of criminal cases and to ensure that courts should have all proper information before sentence is passed. These are objects which I am confident will commend themselves to the whole House, irrespective of party. I am confident that these objects will be achieved by the Bill and that they will be achieved at additional expenditure which, as the House will see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, is not very substantial.
It is on that basis that I commend this Bill to the House, as a useful and uncontroversial Measure, and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

4.56 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that this is a very useful Bill. Its introduction has been made possible by the extremely comprehensive and valuable quality of the work of the Interdepartmental Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Streatfeild, upon which the Bill is based. It is a legal Bill—the sort that might tempt lawyers to take their traditional holiday in this House—but it has its human aspects. On looking at it, and on looking through the technicalities of it, which have been so clearly explained by the Attorney-General, I discern two major motives on the part of the members of the Committee—both legal and non-legal members—who must have worked extremely well together.
First, they were confronted with the problem, which is of concern to everybody, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, of the delays which sometimes ensue before persons accused of crimes are finally brought to trial and either acquitted or sentenced, and their motive was to solve that problem. The second motive, of a wider character—not of peculiar technical import—is that described in the second part of the Report, which centres upon the provision to judges sentencing persons who have been convicted of offences with the appropriate information about the individual they are sentencing—information about his background and his general circumstances; in other words, everything which, according to modern concepts of appropriate penalties, would be thought of relevance by a tribunal sentencing a criminal.
Views upon the awarding of sentences have changed very much in recent years. What is perhaps somewhat disrespectfully referred to in the Report itself as the "tariff system" of penalities—that is to say, the giving to a criminal of an appropriate dollop of years or months proportionate to the quality and culpability of his crime, has been superseded by what I think we would all regard as a more enlightened and contemporaneous approach, which not merely takes into account the moral quality of the transgression for which the criminal is being sentenced but also his character and antecedents, and the circumstances of his upbringing and his early and middle life, the endeavour being to make the penalty more appropriate to the broad objects which courts seek to achieve by the imposition of penalties—in other words, not merely to punish the criminal but to do what is best to protect society and to bring him back, in due course, as a useful member of society when he has suffered his punishment. That is the second human objective which the Committee obviously had in view.
I shall briefly review the Bill and offer some observations, not of a controversial character, because I entirely accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about it. It is shocking for the ordinary person when he is told that large numbers of people have to wait three months—and in many cases four months—before they are brought to trial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman analysed the figures which are set out in the Report and gave us the figures which appear in the tables of the Report, reminding us that, according, to the Home Office Research Unit, in 1957, about 1,200 persons had to wait for three months and over, and about 400 persons in that year had to wait for over four months before they were finally brought to trial. I should like to supplement the figures which he gave by one other figure which appears in the Report. Eight weeks are taken by Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his colleagues as the proper period which should elapse before the trial takes place, but in that same year no fewer than 5,000 persons had to wait for varying periods over eight weeks before they were brought to trial.
Faced with that problem, the Committee, as I read its reasoning, really had to face the problem in this way: the Committee said, "We could achieve speedy trial if we enlarged the system of permanent criminal courts." That is, in other words, extending over a national network, as I think the Committee called it, the existing system under which the Crown Courts of Liverpool and Manchester are organised, and, indeed, the Central Criminal Court, London Sessions and Middlesex Sessions. That was one way in which it seemed to the Committee that it might compass the object of bringing about speedy and regular final disposal of criminal cases brought before courts of quarter sessions and courts of assize. That method the Committee rejected. When this matter was discussed in another place it was thought that this rejection was quite right, and I also take the view that the Committee was perfectly right in deciding against the wholesale extension of criminal courts permanently in session. I think that was a wise decision.
When this House, only a few years back, set up the Crown Courts of Manchester and Liverpool, which are permanent criminal courts, and when we have before us the example of the Central Criminal Court, London Sessions and so on, all of which courts are accepted as having operated admirably over the years, it may, in a sense, be rather inconsistent now to say that that is a system which we do not think should be extended. When I think of that, I remind myself of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) said on the Licensing Bill. When dealing with the intervention of an hon. Member who asked if he were not being rather inconsistent with something that he had said before, his answer was that "consistency weighed upon the human intellect like an alp". I think that is perfectly true. I do not think that one can aim at complete consistency in the conduct of human affairs. I support the view, which I have ventured to offer, that the Committee was right in not deciding to extend the system of permanent criminal courts by the reflection that the administration of justice by a judge is a very human proceeding. It requires a broad and sympathetic view of human affairs and a full and sensitive understanding of human motives.
As was pointed out by the Committee in paragraphs 128, 129 and 132 of the Report, it is difficult—I do not say that it is impossible—for a judge, who is trying criminal cases day in and day out and who is in an area in which e necessarily must be, as it were, somewhat socially aloof, to maintain that sensitive, quick and alert understanding of the way in which people react which is so necessary to a full discharge of the functions of a judge.
I do not offer any criticism of any permanent criminal judges at the moment. I think that they discharge their functions admirably, and I can speak only with admiration of the way in which they have surmounted the difficulties to which the Committee point. The Committee itself points to the danger of a judge in that aloof position dealing only with criminal cases and not being, as the Committee puts it, refreshed by contact with litigation of an entirely different type, raising utterly different types of situation and human problems becoming—it is the Committee's own word—"stale". It imposes a great burden upon the judges, and one which, speaking for myself, I think that it is better, if some other system can be devised, not to call upon judges to undertake. For that reason—I really re-echo the findings of the Committee itself—it decided that the better course was to adapt the existing procedure for the sittings of quarter sessions and assize courts in such a way that we get, as the Attorney-General indicated, the equivalent in effect of a constant and regular administration of justice, which makes it unnecessary for the delays with which the Committee was concerned to occur.
The Attorney-General indicated the various ways in which the Committee sought, by changing the existing arrangements, to bring that about. There are the most elaborate provisions with regard to the sittings of the Assize courts. They are to be divided, in the terms of the Committee's proposals, into special and general itineraries. I understand the proposal to be that certain circuits, the busy towns where there is a heavy flow of criminal business, should be grouped together, and assize judges should go around these towns, as it were, on a special visit. That they should do no less than four times a year, although the

normal assize takes place three times a year, and, I suppose, will continue to do so for the ordinary visits.
Concerning the business of quarter sessions, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, the business of the magistrates' courts, the petty sessional divisional courts, is to be enlarged to remove from assize courts and quarter sessions some of the types of offence with which the petty sessional courts cannot deal at the moment, and there is also to be a general rearrangement of their sittings and the way in which they transact their business. Notably the system of referring cases to what are described as convenient courts is to be enlarged, in my opinion very properly, and, I hope, in such a way as to achieve the objectives which the Committee have in mind.
In putting my views on this Bill before the House, I do not think that I should be serving any useful purpose by going into the minutiae of the intricacies of what must necessarily be a very technical Bill. Having said that I welcome the Bill and desire to be joined in the thanks repeatedly expressed in another place, and again here, to the Committee for the admirable work it did, I should like to put two broad questions to the Attorney-General. They centre on the propositions advanced in another place by Lord Goddard.
This Bill would abolish appeal committees. Clause 4 (5) implements the recommendation of the Streatfeild Committee, contained in paragraphs 197–201 of its Report, that appeal business should be done at ordinary quarter sessions and that the appeal committees at present existing, set up under Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, should be brought to an end. In his speech in another place—which I am not allowed to quote, but I think it is in order for me to give the effect—Lord Goddard raised the question whether it was wise to abolish the existing appeal committee procedure. The objective which it was sought to accomplish by Section 7 of the 1933 Act, as he explained it, was that for the purpose of dealing with appeals we should have, as it were, a specially selected panel of experienced justices.
Lord Goddard pointed out that when dealing with appeals at quarter sessions from petty sessional courts it was a


matter of dealing with cases in which there was an appeal from justices to justices, from magistrates to magistrates, and the burden of the noble and learned Lord's argument, that being the case, was whether there was an adequate reason for dispensing with a procedure which had worked admirably, and which had been designedly conceived not so long ago, in 1933?
I ask the Government whether they have thought carefully over the argument used by Lord Goddard and have come to a final decision. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in his Third Reading speech, in another place, dealt with this argument and, as I read his speech, came down against the proposition of Lord Goddard, but not very strongly. The reasons he gave were that there are now more legally qualified chairmen and deputy-chairmen than in 1933, and that no doubt is a fact. The Lord Chancellor said further that it is the case that now justices are better trained because of the procedure for training which has been introduced. No doubt those are arguments which deserve careful consideration, but they do not leave me altogether satisfied, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again. I do not say necessarily to reverse the view held so far on the matter by the Government, but to think again whether they are right to abolish this appeal procedure.
The reason the Committee recommended that appeal committees should be abolished was to avoid wastage of time. I am not sure that that is not too great a sacrifice. I simply pose the question; I have still rather an open mind about it. But I think it is a matter which should be considered further by the Government. No doubt during the Committee stage discussions, which will follow if the Bill be given a Second Reading, hon. Members will desire to probe the matter further.
The other matter raised by the noble and learned Lord was his proposal that boroughs with a population of 65,000 persons and upwards which had no separate commissioner of the peace and no separate court of quarter sessions might he required by the Lord Chancellor to petition Her Majesty for a separate commissioner and a separate court of quarter sessions. He further proposed that if within three months of

the Lord Chancellor requiring them to do so they did not present a petition, the Lord Chancellor himself might present a petition on their behalf.
There are a number of boroughs, as the noble Lord pointed out, which have populations very considerably in excess of the limit of 65,000 and which still have not their own separate court of quarter sessions or recorder. This leads to rather ludicrous results. For example, Lord Goddard pointed to Swindon with a population of 83,000 which has no court of quarter sessions. Offenders from Swindon have to go for trial to the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions which are held at Salisbury or Devizes. This means a difficult, inconvenient and somewhat expensive journey. It would seem to be quite unnecessary for that to have to take place.
Another example is that of Ilford, with a population of 178,000. Offenders from Ilford go to Chelmsford, which seems an arrangement not easy to justify. It was quite recently that Parliament took the recorders from boroughs with a population, I think, of under 65,000 where recorders existed. It would seem a reasonable extension of that rearrangement that boroughs with a population substantially above that limit with no recorder should be able to petition to be granted a recorder.
Lord Goddard was supported by Lord Silkin, who instanced the 15 new towns, notably Basildon, where the population would he likely to be very large. According to his argument Basildon and similar towns should have their own recorders and try their own offenders. I have no interest to declare in this respect as this does not apply to my constituency. That was dealt with especially in debate. County sessions sit at Newport although we have not our own quarter sessions and recorder, so I have no personal interest to declare. Newport does not come within the scope of the criticisms advanced by Lord Goddard.
The Lord Chancellor replied for the Government, and, as I understood his speech, again somewhat hesitantly he said he would still think about what was proposed by Lord Goddard. I gather that Swindon had decided to present a petition, but the Lord Chancellor pointed out that possibly, in view of the


impending reorganisation of local government, any such proposition would be somewhat premature. I understand that the matter is one on which the Government have not closed their minds. They are influenced by the consideration that it is perhaps better to use persuasion rather than to use on the boroughs, in the Lord Chancellor's words, "the big stick". I think that is what the Lord Chancellor called it.
In putting my considerations to the House, I ask the Attorney-General what is the present thinking of the Government on these matters and whether they have come to a concluded view. Certainly I think this a matter which will be further explored during the Committee stage discussions, as no doubt will many of the other Clauses in the Bill.
Another matter on which I have no personal interest to declare is the question of the salaries of recorders. I realise that some hon. Members will have a particular concern about this, and it is perfectly right that they should. But, as the Committee pointed out, recorders are the linch-pin in a great deal of the administration of justice at quarter sessions, and it is unreasonable that the present system should continue which requires them to make financial sacrifices in order to discharge their duties. The position of recorder is one of great honour and is valued. The post is sparingly conferred. But I put it to the Government that the time has come—I think it is recognised by this Bill—that there should be some more sensible assessment of the remuneration payable to recorders; and possibly a slight adjustment in the Income Tax law which makes it impossible for them to charge their hotel and travelling expenses as expenditure against income, and therefore singles them out for treatment in a manner which seems harsh compared with the treatment accorded to many other taxpayers in the matter of expenses.
I have not so far said much about Part II. Part II, in a sense, is the most important part of the Bill, because it is the part which deals with the question of punishment. I say little about Part II because, with one exception, I understand from Government spokesmen, the proposals in Part II can all be imple

mented by administrative means and, except in one particular case in Clause 14, do not require legislative change. However, such legislation as is required is now in the Bill.
All I desire to say about that is that a large number of separate and specific proposals are made with reference to the furnishing of information about convicted persons. In Committee we shall all probably want to know in considerable detail what administrative arrangements are to be made to implement those proposals. I think they are of the greatest value, but, as they do not appear in the Bill and this is the Second Reading and not the Committee stage, I do not think it would be useful to seek to discuss them further.
I certainly hope that the House will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading. We shall want to examine its specific provisions much more carefully in Committee, but I think that it is a very useful and excellent Measure. In that respect, I wish that it did not stand out in such marked contrast with other Measures introduced by the present Government.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I share with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) the welcome given to this Bill. The only thing on which I disagree a little with him is that he said that this was a legal Bill on which lawyers would have their traditional holiday. Undoubtedly lawyers will speak in this debate, but the part we play nowadays is stressed a little too much compared with economists and financiers who get a far greater share of the opportunity to address the House.
This, as the Attorney-General said, is a useful Bill. I think it is also a very important Bill. The administration of justice—particularly criminal justice, but generally all justice—is a matter which touches us in this House very closely and touches everyone throughout the whole country. This is an important Bill, because it produces a much-needed review, based on the great work done by the Streatfeild Committee, of the administration of criminal justice.
As we all know, pressure of business has increased tremendously in the past


few years and undoubtedly the system was beginning to creak. It was creaking to such an extent that it needed the additional appointment of extra judges. But flowing from the appointment of extra judges, there must come a review of the court accommodation and other such matters resulting from having more courts to be able to deal more speedily with offenders. I recollect an occasion when on the hottest day of summer the winter assize was being wound up by a commissioner who had come to deal with civil cases because the judges had been so pressed by criminal business that they had little time to devote to civil business. In those circumstances civil litigants had to wait long months before their cases were tried.
I share with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport the fairly common view of the Committee, which is held generally among members of the profession, against the establishment of more Crown courts. The right hon. and learned Member spoke about inconsistency and quoted what the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) had said. Emerson said:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
I quite agree that this was an experiment worth making in Manchester and Liverpool, but one which it would not be satisfactory to extend generally throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is the special case, which is quite obviously different, of London where there are a number of permanent judges—not single judges but a body of judges—who sit at the Old Bailey and London Sessions. They have the opportunity to mingle with members of their profession and the breadth of the kind of cases which come to be tried at those courts makes London distinct and separate from other cities in this regard.
I think the ordinary litigant in civil matters certainly wishes to have his case tried by a High Court judge. In crime also it is essential that they should be the judges who try the cases. Very useful work has been carried out by commissioners who have been sent to assist judges in clearing the gaols, but in principle it is a task to be done by a judge. Therefore, although on occasion there

will be need for commissioners, nevertheless the principle to be aimed at is that nearly all the cases should be tried by judges.
Following from the appointment of these judges, and though it seems that extra circuits will be arranged and that the judges will be sitting in courts which otherwise would be empty nevertheless, with the amount of criminal business there is a tremendous need for a considerable review of the proper accommodation of the courts. Courts are places where large numbers of people foregather. The accommodation for members of the public is essential; there should be proper accommodation for witnesses waiting to give evidence, and proper arrangements for bringing prisoners up from the cells for their trial and taking them away. In some cities throughout the country the accommodation needs considerable overhaul.
We should also not forget the pressure which the amount of criminal business has brought to bear on members of the public. There is a tremendous amount of extra work which has to be done by those called to give their services as members of juries. I personally regret that juries are not used more often in civil actions. Apart from this House, I believe juries to be one of the great standbyes and safeguards of an Englishman's liberty. This involves no reflection on Her Majesty's judges, but formerly juries played a part in civil cases in which they were able by verdicts to express views which may not have been the views of the judges or persons practising in the courts; but they were able by their individual idiosyncrasies to influence and indicate what public opinion was about the law in another way different from that through their elected Member of Parliament.
We have had to call many more citizens to service as jurors, and it should be appreciated that a great burden has been put on men and women called away from their homes or offices to do this very essential work. Although speed is an important facet to criminal administration, I sometimes think that it can be over-emphasised. Although one looks with horror at the delays in certain other countries in regard to the administration of justice, nevertheless speed can be over-emphasised. There


can be occasions when the procedure is too speedy between trial and committal.
It is a time when very hard work often has to be done by the defence. Sometimes very difficult inquiries have to be made. The trial should not be rushed upon too speedily after committal. This is also a period when a great attempt should be made to obtain from the person awaiting trial information which may be necessary should that person be convicted and have to be sentenced by the appropriate court. I should like that time to be used more than now by the court—not by the prosecution—to find as much information as possible about a person not on bail but in custody awaiting trial.
I, too, look forward to that provision of information referred to in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Streatfeild Report. I think it essential nowadays when the great task, the first task, is to try to prevent first offenders from becoming second offenders. If we can only cut that figure by 2 or 3 per cent. then the whole back of the problem will have been broken. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to provide those statistics and that information which I personally feel can play in these modern days a great part in assisting the person sentencing to impose the correct and appropriate sentence.
It would give an opportunity of comparing, of seeing the successes and also the follow-up of persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a certain type of treatment. It is essential that we should see how best we can relate the great task not only of protecting the public and of punishing the crime but also of ensuring that the convicted person never again comes before a court. I think that this is a very important administrative matter which I trust will speedily be available to the advantage of the sentencers.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, that this is a useful Bill, but, in my opinion, it is also a very important Bill.

5.32 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Like everybody else, I am sure, in the House, I welcome the Bill,

and am grateful to the Streatfeild Committee for its admirable Report. I was particularly interested in two of the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). Like him, I agree very strongly with the attitude which the Government have taken over the Crown courts. My right hon. and learned Friend, if I may say so, put the position very sensibly and I do not wish to add to or to detract from anything that he said. It is a consideration which applies not only to criminal courts, but also to a certain number of civil courts in the country, but that I shall not weary the House with on this occasion.
The other remark which my right hon. and learned Friend made was about the recorders. Like him, I am not a recorder and never shall be one, and therefore I feel completely free to make my observations on the matter. I think it utterly wrong that the country should try to get its justice on the cheap by paying for it out of the pockets of the recorders. In a number of cases not only are recorders paid sums which do not cover expenses, but they are not even allowed local expenses, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. They cannot even have the expense of travelling from the Temple to their court allowed for Income Tax purposes. This really is a matter which is scandalous and which ought to be properly reviewed.
My purpose in intervening in the debate is just to deal with one very limited matter to which the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) refered—the question of accommodation. I am very much perturbed about the matter of accommodation not only in some places in the provinces, but also here in the High Court in London. I think that the position has really become extremely bad.
I should like to know whether in the sums referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum any provision at all is made in the budget for improved accommodation. It is proposed to increase the number of judges. I do not know how far that would mean that more judges would be sitting in London, or whether it would mean a greater demand for accommodation in the provinces or what is being done


about it. As I say, it is about accommodation in London in particular that I wish to make a few observations.
Some time ago a committee was set up under the chairmanship of former Lord Justice Romer. That committee I believe, submitted a report to the Lord Chancellor, but as far as I know it has never been published. At any rate, I have not seen it. I should be interested to know what that report contains and the first question I wish to put to the Government is whether they contemplate publishing that report or will make it available in the Library of the House. It would be interesting to know what the recommendations of that committee were.
In the High Court in the Strand we have at present not only temporary, make-shift accommodation inside the stone building, but we have as courts in a yard there a couple of wooden huts which were put up at the end of the First World War and which were supposed to be temporary. I visited them today and these two utterly tattered wooden places are still performing after many years what was supposed to be a temporary function.
The Government and the people of the country really ought to make up their minds about this matter. Do we really want the dignified administration of justice, or do we not? It is a little foolish to have wig and gown, to have the panoply of the law and the dignity of the law, of which I am all in favour, and, at the same time, to put it into accommodation which is utterly inadequate. Not only is this undignified, but it is insufficient and leads to inefficiency, and this I should like to expand a little.
The courts with which I am particularly concerned are, of course, the Chancery courts, and we now have one of the Chancery courts put in a temporary room at the top of the building in the Strand. I also visited other temporary courts on the Queen's Bench side and in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I do not think that any of them has quite all the disadvantages which this Chancery court has, but I have no doubt that all of them have one or more of these disadvantages. To get to this court at the top of the building one has 87 stone stairs to climb if one goes by the shortest route.
If one goes in from the Strand, as most litigants do, one has over 100 stone steps to climb.
It is true that there is a lift, but no one who is in a hurry to take part in a case before the court at the top of that building would dream of taking the lift. I have, on occasion, attempted to do so. One has to wait to find someone who will take one up. If there is someone there, one does not know how long it will be before the lift arrives and when travelling in the lift one never knows with whom one may be travelling and that, on occasion, may be extremely embarrassing if one is involved in a case where there is, shall we say, a little tension. I have never gone up to that Chancery court in the lift though on various occasions in the past I have attempted to use the lift.
My experience applies equally to all the other Chancery practitioners whom I constantly see climbing the stairs to the courts or descending from them. It applies also to the judge. The court itself is a small ordinary room—the dimensions are not the dimensions of a court at all—it was never built for the purpose. It is an obscure room intended for an obscure official who was put in the most obscure part of the building. That room has been converted into a court of the High Court of Justice in which the administration of justice is conducted on the very highest level.
It really is a ridiculous situation. Once one is in the court one faces the judge behind whom are two vast windows, which are the only source of light. One has to face the glare of those windows for day after day, as any sensitive counsel must, in trying to see how the judge's face is working—which is sometimes an indication of how his mind is working. Anyone who tries to face the glare of those windows for any length of time finds it extremely trying.
As everyone who conducts such cases knows, there are occasions on which one wants to talk with counsel and solicitors on one's own side and perhaps with the client without everybody else in the court knowing precisely the point one has in mind, the point one wants to make, or the point about which one is ignorant and wants information. It is not advisable to give away points, or expose one's ignorance. But in that small room one is literally cheek by jowl


with one's opponents, without adequate space, and it is extremely difficult in present circumstances to conduct a case properly. The court is stuffy. If the windows are opened—and they are the only means of ventilation—it is draughty. One has a choice.
The judge has a small room next to this converted court-room. He has to walk through the well of the court to get to the bench, and anyone who knows anything about the construction of courts knows that that is, undesirable. His permanent room gives immediately on to a public passageway, which means that if any normal care is taken, the judge has to be kept under lock and key. He should have a room which opens on to a passage which is not a public passage and which gives immediate access to the bench on which he sits instead of into the well of the court.
I know that some of these temporary courts, which have been temporarily converted, are reasonably tolerable for a certain time, but this court, which has all the disadvantages of a temporary court, should not be continued. Even a temporary court should be either on the ground floor or reasonably near it. It should be of adequate size, with proper lighting and ventilation, and should provide a certain amount of privacy for the judge. It should not involve everybody—judge, counsel, solicitors and litigants on both sides and the public—being mixed up together in their approach to the court, inside the court, and in getting away from it. What is needed is a thorough review of the distribution of the accommodation at present available.
I want to draw attention to one or two further considerations which apply particularly to the Chancery court. There are six Chancery judges and six Chancery courts. The nature of Chancery business is such that it is important that these courts should be grouped together and that it should be easy to move from one court to another. Let me give as an example the regular Monday business in the Chancery court. On a Monday, two courts do chamber summonses, with about 12 cases in each court during the course of the day. In other words, 20 to 30 cases are considered in those two courts in the course of the day. There

is a third judge sitting in the Companies court, in which there may be 30 to 40 cases. In other words, in those three courts on that one day 50 to 70 cases are considered.
This means that a number of counsel are engaged in all three courts on the same day and that a number of solicitors are similarly engaged. If the proceedings are to be dealt with properly, it is vital that they should be able to get quickly from one court to another. On two other days of the weeks, Tuesdays and Fridays, although we do not have the short cases to the same extent, we have motions, and therefore a considerable amount of shod case work is going on during those two days in the Chancery courts. Again, it is extremely important that counsel and solicitors, in their clients' interests, should be able to get quickly from one court to the other. On three days out of the five it is extremely important for the proper administration of justice that the Chancery courts should be grouped together conveniently.
This is fully recognised, and the Chancery courts were built together in the same part of the building. In fact, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, which are the chambers days and the motions days when these numerous short cases occur, an effort is made to bring down the judge, when he is involved in the short cases, from his top room into one of the collection of regular permanent Chancery courts and to enable him to sit there. Think of it—the judge has to come down, robed, from his own room, by 87 or more steps, or has to borrow, if he can, a room from another judge. That is not the way in which to conduct business. No business organisation would conduct its business in this way. No business organisation would dream of it. Which company director would tolerate his business being dealt with and interfered with in this way?
The obvious solution is to have all the Chancery courts together in the same part of the building and readily accessible to each other. This is not just a question of dignity, although that is extremely important in the administration of justice. It is also a question of sheer efficiency of organisaiton—the sheer business efficiency test. It does not pass that, let alone the test of the


proper dignity required for the administration of justice.
We all know that the difficulty is that although there are only six Chancery judges and six Chancery courts, a seventh judge has been allocated to the Chancery Division who does not do Chancery work. The obvious solution would be for his court to be restored to the Chancery judges so that business can be properly conducted. I cannot understand why that is not done. The learned judge—a very senior judge for whom we all have the greatest respect—could be provided with another regular court in the building. I do not understand why this course is not followed.
The Chancery Division is "fed to the teeth" with the present position. If this were not so I should not be making these observations in the House. There must be a good deal of feeling about it before one brings this kind of thing forward to Parliament for consideration. I should not otherwise dream of taking up the time of the House upon this limited administrative matter. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Epsom indicated, it is not an unimportant aspect of the administration of justice. We are all concerned that it should be administered efficiently and with dignity and we feel that in the Chancery court and elsewhere in the High Court, let alone in the provinces, the court is not adequately accommodated to enable this to be done.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few observations about the Bill. I do so especially because I have the honour to be a member of the Northern Circuit which, solely among the seven circuits in England and Wales, has had experience of the functioning of Crown courts. I shall say something about the functioning of Crown courts later. Before doing so I join with other hon. Members who have already spoken in paying tribute to the Streatfeild Committee for the very valuable work which it has done. Its deliberations lasted over two and a half years. I suppose the greatest compliment that we can pay the Committee is the fact that we have introduced the Bill and are considering it today.
One of the many sayings of the great Bacon which is frequently quoted to this

day is that "justice is sweetest when it is freshest." That is something to which the Committee gave particular attention. Its general finding was that the period of waiting for trial is too long. Point is added to this finding of the Committee in that since 1957, the year for which the Committee took its figures, there has been an appreciable increase in the crime rate. Even during 1957—these figures were referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—5,000 accused had to wait over eight weeks for trial; 1,200 had to wait for over three months; and 400 had to wait for over four months. This was a deplorable state of affairs.
One statistic which has not been referred to so far is perhaps more important than any of these. This is the disturbing fact that about 300 people were subsequently acquitted after spending varying lengths of time in custody awaiting trial. Society clearly owes a duty to such people to ensure that the waiting period is kept as short as possible. I welcome the fact, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that the Government accept as a principle that only in the most exceptional cases should the waiting period for trial be more than two months.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his opening speech, the obvious solution which would commend itself to most people is that the existing system of Crown courts should be extended. This system was established in 1956, as most hon. Members will know. As I have said, I am a member of the Northern Circuit, and I believe that I am right in saying that the principal consideration which led to the establishment of the Crown court system in 1956 was not so much that it should deal with criminal cases as that it should enable the backlog of civil cases to be disposed of at the assizes while the criminal cases, or most of them, were dealt with by the Crown courts. Paradoxically enough, by the time the Crown court came into being in Liverpool the backlog of civil cases had largely been dealt with, though I do not think that this was so in Manchester.
There is no doubt that the Crown courts have served a very useful purpose, both in expediting the hearing of criminal cases and in preventing the assize


crime lists being cluttered up and thereby allowing civil business to be dealt with expeditiously. The system is open to criticism. Criticism was, in fact, made of it in another place, and I do not propose to repeat anything that was said by any one else. I am glad to see that the heads of our judiciary have adopted a very human view of the difficulties of judges. The case against the Crown court system could be put in a nutshell in this way: a judge cannot he expected to remain at his judicial best when he is dealing with the same kind of case all the time in the same place, with the same police officers, the same advocates and, very often, even the same criminals, before him.
As was pointed out in another place—this is a matter of general application—there is much to be said in favour of the system of the anonymous judge who appears in one place relatively seldom and is in no sense bound to the locality. It is only fair to say out of justice to the Crown courts—in this I echo something said by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas)—that these criticisms can be applied to many local courts, including civil courts.
I pay tribute to the Crown courts for the valuable work they have done, but I am glad that the Government have decided not to extend the system but to deal with the increase in crime, and in work generally, by a system of extended assizes, even though the system may be more difficult to administer than that of the Crown courts as they exist at present. I stress in this connection that a system of extended assizes will help appreciably in the disposal of civil cases. We should not lose sight of this fact, because this was one of the main reasons for introducing the Crown court system.
I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill which are designed to hasten the trial of accused persons, and particularly the extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions and petty sessions. I was rather surprised that in another place some criticism was voiced of the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of petty sessions. Without going into details, these are eminently sensible pro visions. Indeed, I go so far as to say that, if they work well in practice, as

they no doubt will, consideration should perhaps be given later to further extensions of powers of petty sessions.
There is also an eminently sensible provision to enable a legally qualified chairman of quarter sessions in appropriate cases to deal with cases by himself without the assistance of another justice. It is, furthermore, a very good thing that the length of the sentence should be reduced by the amount of time an accused has already spent in custody following committal for trial. There is at present no obligation upon a judge either to take this into account or, if he has taken it into account, to say that he has done so.
As I understood one point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, when he voiced something which was discussed in another place, he wanted some degree of compulsion to be brought to bear in certain circumstances for boroughs to apply for recorders to be appointed. Not to put too fine a point upon it, the suggestion was that in certain circumstances a recorder might be forced upon a borough. If a recorder were to be forced upon an unwilling borough, it could cause a good deal of unpleasantness. As was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor in another place, it is very unlikely that any borough council would decline to petition for a separate court of quarter sessions if it was suggested to the council plainly that it was its duty to do so. Experience so far appears to be that there has been more difficulty in restraining unsuitable applications for such courts than in encouraging petitions to obtain them.
I should like some information on one matter which was raised in another place, but which has not been referred to here. It is the costs of prosecutions and who shall bear them. This matter was raised, but not pursued, in another place. The point was made very trenchantly that the unfortunate County of Northampton—in which I have no pesonal interest; I cite is merely as an instance—has suffered very heavily and has had increases in rates on two occasions when the offences concerned had only the most fortuitous connection with the county. One case was as far back as 1931—the well-known case of Alfred Arthur Rouse, when quite by


chance a murder was committed within the confines of the county by someone who was travelling north. It might equally well have been committed two or three counties away. I understand that that led to an increase in the rates. Latterly, there was an Income Tax evasion case which was committed to trial within the county simply because the Income Tax district concerned had its headquarters in Northampton, although the offences were not committed there at all.
I suppose that some relief will be granted by the provisions of Clause 16, and it may be that those provisions were introduced as a result of discussion of this matter in another place. I also understand that it is possible to recover from the Police Fund up to 50 per cent. of the costs of prosecution. I am rather vague about the present position and would be grateful for some information about it. Would not the Government consider a total change of this policy so that the central Government would bear the costs of prosecutions? I understand that that was, in part, at any rate, the position until the County Councils Act came into force in 1888. It is a matter of some importance, because certain local authorities can suffer quite heavily as a result of criminal offences being committed fortuitously within their boundaries, and I think that some relief is due.
I welcome the Bill as, I am sure, does every other hon. Member, and I am very grateful for having been given the opportunity of supporting it.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I join in welcoming the Bill. The Streatfeild Committee, so to describe it, was appointed in June, 1958, reported at the end of 1960, and this Measure is brought before us now after consideration in another place. I am grateful that the whole matter has been dealt with so expeditiously and thoroughly. I could wish for the same stream-lined efficiency and speed in the Government's treatment of other matters.
It may be thought to be a duty of a member of the Bar who is also a Member of this House to try to discover from the public, and from his constitutents in particular, what requirements the public feel must be fulfilled in the administra

tion of the law, and then he may be able to bring to bear his experience as a lawyer on the consideration of how far existing practice and proposed changes meet those needs.
Approaching the matter in that fashion, I would suggest that what is sought most by my constituents and, I have no doubt, by the constituents of all hon. Members, is speedy justice and, at the same time, justice that is dispensed by fair-minded men of unmistakeable and exceptional ability. Those two requirements are reconcilable, but it requires vigilance to ensure that they are reconciled.
There is no doubt that at present there is too great delay in the treatment of criminal cases. The figures have been referred to more than once, and they are important and significant. We have been reminded that in 1957 over 1,200 people had to wait for more than three months before being brought to trial; that is the lapse of time occurring between committal and date of trial. We have also been reminded that nearly half of those people were committed in custody and not on bail, and that in 1957 a substantial number of them—I think that 300 was the figure—were acquitted after having spent varying periods of time in custody. In the context of circumstances of that kind there is no doubt that there is too much delay.
I think that an important part of the Committee's recommendations consists of the proposal to reorganise the itineraries of judges of assize. It is important for the House to bear in mind that it is this plan, I understand, which particularly requires and is made the occasion for the proposed appointment of extra judges to the High Court. When the statutory maximum of High Court judges reaches 53 the question inevitably arises as to whether there is any threat to the very high standard of the English judges.
That matter has given rise to discussion under two heads, in particular, with which I will shortly deal. First, it has been said that it is time to see whether there can be found recruits for the judiciary from sources other than the Bar alone. On that, perhaps I may be permitted to say, with great respect, that the proven capacity of English judges in criminal matters to sum up at


the end of the evidence and of speeches, and of judges in civil cases to deliver judgment immediately at the end of counsels' speeches—there being comparatively seldom any need or occasion to reserve judgment—is a factor that contributes in a very real and practical way to the speedy administration of justice. I am led to think that those qualities are the envy of foreigners. As I well remember, for any student coming to the Bar and for any member of the Bar recently called, it is a capacity that fills him with well-warranted awe.
I think that if judges were asked about this they would probably acknowledge that the faculty of thus summing up a case without delay, or of delivering judgment in complicated matters without requiring to reserve judgment, derives from their training and experience at the Bar. This is really the nexus between the two functions that are performed in court. The duty and function of an advocate may be very different from the duty and function of a judge, but they still have this in common: that they both call for a capacity to marshal facts, and long training undoubtedly greatly contributes to this.
The second line of discussion to which this part of the matter has given rise relates to the concept of the ladder of judicial promotion. I understand that it has been suggested that there should be a more regular ladder of promotion; In particular, perhaps, from the county court bench. We have been assured more than once, and in another place, that this field will continue to be surveyed when occasion demands or requires it. Some of us, however, are not altogether happy about the concept of the judicial ladder.
It has been said in another place that the underlying principle of our system is that judicial decisions are not to be influenced, on the one hand, by fear of dismissal or, on the other, by hope of promotion. I speak cautiously on a subject of this kind—I recognise its importance—but it seems to me that this is a correct view and one with which many will agree. It has been regarded as fundamental that the fear of dismissal because of a decision unpalatable to authority should not be allowed to affect

judges. I suggest, in that connection, that it is rather difficult to distinguish in principle between the fear of dismissal and the hope of promotion.
As has been said, the Bill might have provided for more Crown courts. For my part, I am glad that it does not. Such a course was not recommended by the Streatfeild Committee. There has been reference to the risk of staleness and of a sense of isolation in these continuous courts as they are sometimes called. My view is that there is some evidence to support this. These features and the undue concentration upon criminal cases are precisely what Our assize system avoids.
I was very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) went on to deal with certain matters affecting the jurisdiction and administration of quarter sessions. I think that the association of lay justices with qualified chairmen is an invaluable feature of our system, spreading the idea of doing justice, as it were, throughout the community. I would not want anything to be done that would diminish the proper sense of justices of their significance in the whole system.
From this point of view, I should have thought that the provision that a qualified chairman of county quarter sessions may sit alone to hear a case if no lay justice is available needed watching. I can see, of course, that at first sight that is an obvious enough method of avoiding one amongst many possible sources or causes of delay, but one cannot help wondering whether it may not possess rather more significance than appears at first sight. May it not perhaps be the thin end of the wedge and tantamount to an intimation that the presence of lay justices is not required?
Similar considerations affect my mind with regard to the proposal that appeal committees of county quarter sessions are to be abolished. That, as has already been said, has been referred to in another place. I have always understood that the justices had a way, in conformity with our traditions, of sorting themselves out, as it were, so that the ablest and most experienced of them sat on the appeal committee. I should have thought that that was useful and had good results, and that justices might be discouraged by what is now proposed.
Henceforward, under the new dispensation, a person may be convicted at quarter sessions before a bench consisting of a qualified chairman and two or three justices of ability and experience, and then, on appeal, under this new system he may find himself before a chairman of equivalent qualifications but before justices of less ability and less experience. This would seem—although I am open to hear any defence of the proposal covering this point—to be a possible and undesirable consequence of the change that is proposed.
A voice of great authority in another place has spoken of the value and importance in this respect of the appeal committee; and, as I say, if there has been built up this practice by which the most experienced magistrates come together on the appeal committee for their own benefit and for the benefit of the administration of justice, we would want to be assured that that factor had been fully weighed before the proposed change is finally decided upon.
Attention has been drawn to the fact, also, that many boroughs which are centres of large populations have no recorders. Some emphasis has been laid upon the obvious difficulties in the way of making it, in effect, mandatory upon boroughs to ask for recorders. But surely we can find an appropriately diplomatic, constitutional and correct way round that kind of difficulty. It is desirable that where we have these great centres of urban population there should be courts of quarter sessions. Where this is not so, a great deal of time is undoubtedly lost—travelling time and time expended by all concerned in the trial. It may well be—I know not—that some of these boroughs prefer that the expense of mantaining a court of quarter sessions should rest upon the county, but this is surely not a factor that should carry decisive weight.
It seems rather unsatisfactory that, when so much time and trouble are given, as in Appendix C of the Committee's Report, to working out elaborate and complicated plans for the reorganisation of the itineraries of judges on assize, anomalies such as those to which I have referred in the large boroughs where there are no courts of quarter sessions should be allowed to continue and survive.
However much I welcome the Bill, we shall not have an entirely streamlined system of administration of criminal justice so long as anomalies of that kind are allowed to survive, with the very real, practical and important difficulties and complications to which such arrangements are apt to give rise. I would not, however, wish these comments to be treated as derogating in any substantial way from my welcome to this most useful Bill.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I decline to be overawed by the fact that during this debate the House has heard only from right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members. I believe that so far every speaker is a member of the Bar. I at once declare my interest as being from the solicitors' profession and I hope that I can give a different slant to some of the arguments in favour of the Bill.
May I join at once in the praise and congratulations to the Streatfeild Committee and for the most valuable Report on which the Bill has been based. As has been said, the objective of the Committee and of the Bill has been, first, to see how the administration of criminal justice can be more expeditiously carried out so as to avoid delays, and secondly, to see how full information of the background of convicted persons can be provided to the courts so that the courts may know the appropriate penalties to impose.
In dealing with criminal justice, one is always apt to think only of the housebreakers, the personal assault cases, robbery with violence, and so on, but a great deal of the time of the criminal courts is taken up, on the one hand, with serious motoring offences, and, on the other, with very long Revenue cases, conspiracy cases, or cases arising out of company law. I think that a very useful provision of the Bill recognises that fact. It occurs in Clause 12 (2), which empowers magistrates to consider, when committing, the fact that the trial is likely to be a long one and to choose the assizes or quarter sessions appropriate for it. I think that that will assist in the general speeding up of administration.
Clause 1 provides for the increase in the number of judges; one is, therefore,


concerned to see whether the time of the judges is to be properly spent. Unlike other speakers, I regret that the Streatfeild Committee did not recommend, and as a result the Bill does not include, the extension of the system of Crown courts. We have seen the success attending the permanent courts in Liverpool and Manchester, and it seems to me that both the final decision of the Streatfeild Committee and the Bill are perpetuating the rather archaic system and paraphernalia of the assize court, and, indeed, the discomfort and disorganisation of the assize system.
It is not only a system of a peripatetic judge, but a system of peripatetic administration. To that degree, those of us in the solicitors' profession who deal with these cases from the administration point of view, have great difficulty in dealing properly with a case under the assize system, where even the administration of the court is moving about the country. Surely modern transport makes it wholly unnecessary that the judge should go to the people with a fanfare of trumpets, as he did in the old days.
May I quote from the Streatfeild Report the paragraph which, when I first read it, made me think that the Committee would recommend the extension of the Crown court system? It is paragraph 124, on page 40, in which the Committee says:
We are satisfied that if the need to solve the present problems were the only relevant consideration, there would be clear advantage in setting up Crown Courts in those areas where there was sufficient work to occupy a continuously sitting court. A Crown Court would provide speedier trial, would result in more judge-time for civil assize work and would automatically solve any problems caused by pressure of work at those quarter sessions which it absorbed.
The paragraph goes on to give further reasons why the Crown court system would provide a more expeditious administration of justice.
The members of the Committee then put forward, as I read the Report, only one reason why they did not adopt the Crown court system or did not recommend its extension. The reason which the Committee gives is that it would cause staleness in the judge. Frankly, I do not follow that argument. I have never heard it put forward about stipendiary magistrates or county court

judges. Even if one accepts it, the judge of the Crown court could be changed over a matter of years. There is no need for him to remain the judge of that court for life. The whole administration of justice would, I am sure, as the Streatfeild Committee says, be speedier and more convenient if the Crown court system were extended. However, the provisions in the Bill which extend the jurisdiction of quarter sessions and the provision for magistrates to commit to the more convenient court will be extremely beneficial.
In general, what the public will look for in the Bill is whether it meets the situation which has arisen out of the increased volume of crime. Many people are most concerned about the attitude of the Government towards crime generally, and they will consider whether this piece of legislation deals with the matter as seriously as the situation demands and whether the Bill treats the administration of criminal justice quite seriously enough.
I should like to deal now with one or two narrow points. One arises out of Clause 7, which deals with the position of recorders, and the appointment of deputy recorders and assistant recorders. It does not make provision for a solicitor to be appointed a recorder. We already have laid down by Statute the fact that a solicitor can be appointed a stipendiary magistrate, chairman of quarter sessions or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions. If the qualifications of a solicitor are sufficient for appointment as chairman of quarter sessions, I should have thought that they would be sufficient for appointment as recorder, or certainly for appointment as a deputy recorder or assistant recorder. For that matter, why should not the solicitors' profession qualify for judgeships? Some who have sat as chairmen of Commissions or Departmental Committees are well known to this House and would be admirably suited for judicial appointments. However, that is a rather wider point than that which I wanted to make, which was that solicitors should be qualified for appointment as recorders.
The next point arises under Clause 8, which deals with recorders' salaries, and the unfortunate position in which the recorder has been placed up to the present with regard to his salary. May I remind my right hon. and learned


Friend that this position applies equally to clerks of the peace of cities and boroughs. Clerks of the peace of both cities and boroughs rely for their salaries on the good will of the local authority. Local authorities do not realise the amount of work which a clerk of the peace has to undertake. The Bill provides that, in future, the Lord Chancellor shall be able to fix the salary of a recorder. Why should not the same apply to clerks of the peace? Why should not the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary be empowered to fix their salaries?
I have here lists of clerks of the peace of cities and boroughs who are receiving fantastically small salaries. When some of the salaries are worked out on an hourly basis, they amount to far less than a charwoman is paid. A clerk of the peace has to put in an immense amount of work and yet, in very many cases, his services are not recognised in any way by the local authority. In my view, it is time that the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary was given the right to direct the proper salaries, especially since under the Bill the duties of clerks of the peace are bound to be increased.
My last point relates to Clause 12. By Clause 12 (1) magistrates may commit to assizes or quarter sessions which are already in session. I foresee difficulty here if both parties do not agree. I should have thought it a very reasonable provision if there were a proviso that both prosecution and defence should agree to such a committal. Before the magistrates' court, the prosecution's case is usually complete. The prosecution has very little work to do between committal by the magistrates and the hearing of the case at quarter sessions or assizes. For the defence this is not so. The defence probably does not know the full purport of the case until the magistrates' court proceedings are completed.
A great deal of time is taken in obtaining the depositions from the prosecution. Sometimes one waits, as defending solicitor, literally for weeks before one can wheedle the copy depositions out of the prosecution.

The Attorney-General: Out of the court.

Mr. Page: Out of the court. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's cor

rection. At any rate, it takes a long time to get them.
It may well be that the defence is put in great difficulty if it is forced into a trial as quickly as is contemplated under Clause 12. One must remember also that, very often, at the magistrates' court stage the defendant is not represented and there is then all the business of his arranging for representation before trial. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this provision again.
Finally, in general I should have liked to see a far bolder treatment of the subject of the Bill and far more imaginative reforms. I believe that the Bill's provisions could have been more revolutionary and could have brought about far more expeditious and far more convenient administration of criminal justice than will be the case as matters now stand. However, the Bill goes a long way and, of course, I strongly support it for that.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: There has been a delightful spirit of harmony in the Chamber this afternoon which I should be the last to try to disturb. I, too, congratulate the Government upon what must be almost unique expedition in the presentation of the Bill. The Streatfeild Committee was appointed in June, 1958. It reported in February of last year. The Second Reading of the Bill in another place was in November last year. I am very glad to see the Government acting with such expedition. The Bill, of course, implements the recommendations made in Part A of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee.
The Streatfeild Report revealed what was described, I think, in the Report itself as indefensible, that is to say, the delay which many accused persons suffered before being brought to trial. The learned Attorney-General gave us the figures, quoting from the Report. 'I wish to refer to some of them again because they are, I believe, of very great importance.
In 1957, 1,200 people waited more than three months from the time they were committed to the time of trial, and 400 actually waited more than four months. As the Attorney-General told


us, 40 per cent. of that number were in custody throughout that period. More significant still is the other figure which was quoted, of 1,700 people committed in custody. Three hundred were subsequently acquitted. Of course, when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, the learned judge can take into account the period during which the person has been kept in custody, but of 9,200 who were kept in custody, 2,000 were given sentences which did not involve detention and, therefore, of course, the period of custody could not be taken into account.
Merely to state these figures is to show how manifestly unjust such a system is. It is unfair to the accused person, of course, that there should be this delay, but it is also unfair in the public interest because the public interest requires that justice should be expeditious. Witnesses have to come along after a long period to give evidence at a time when their recollection is not very clear and they may have forgotten many things. On the face of it, therefore, this reform is plainly necessary.
I gladly welcome the provisions in the Bill for the increase in the number of judges, for the arrangements for the reorganisation of quarter sessions and assizes, and for the extension of the jurisdiction of magistrates. I am sure that they will help to solve our present problem.
In another place, reference was made to the recommendations in the second part of the Streatfeild Report. Those recommended provisions were welcomed and it was said that, apart, I think, from one point only, nothing was required by way of legislation to implement them. It was clearly promised that administrative measures would be adopted to deal with the recommendations under Part B of the Report. The discussion in another place was in November last year.
Can the Attorney-General tell us what arrangements, if any, have been made and whether any of the measures recommended by the Streatfeild Committee under Part B of its Report have yet been adopted? If they have not, what is the intention with regard to them and what measures is it proposed to adopt? This is a matter of very great importance, and

everyone agree, I think, that the recommendations are well worthy of consideration and adoption.
I turn now to the question of Crown courts. Apparently, the only criticism of the recommendation made by the Streatfeild Committee and of the course adopted in the Bill has been the criticism offered by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I cannot disagree with him more. I carefully read the arguments put forward concerning the adoption of the principle of Crown courts. There is a great deal of weight in the argument that if one has a Crown court the judge is isolated and tends to become stale. There is a great deal in the idea of having a High Court judge travelling round the country, at times doing civil work and at other times criminal work, bringing a fresh mind to bear. The decision of the Streatfeild Committee not to put forward an idea of a system of Crown courts but, rather, the system now embodied in the Bill, is, in my view, the correct one.
I must say a word in criticism of Clause 15 (2) of the Bill, which states:
The length of any term of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention imposed by the sentence of any court shall be treated as reduced by any period during which the offender was in custody before the sentence by reason only of having been committed for trial, remanded after arraignment, or committed (under section twenty-eight or section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952…)
Of course, it was always open to the tribunal to take into account, when sentencing a man, the period during which he has been kept in custody. I am glad to see this is now mandatory, but I wonder why the period a person is kept in custody before committal is not to be taken into account? This is limited only to the period after committal. I should have thought, in principle, that whatever period a person has spent in prison—whether before or after committal, whether it was, in fact, in summary proceedings or otherwise—should be taken into account.
After all, if the tribunal desires, it can always take the matter into account by adding some period of time to the sentence. It must be remembered that not only does one get a delay, as it is set out in the Streatfeild Report, but one often gets delay in summary proceedings. It was not within the terms of the


Streatfeild Committee to deal with summary proceedings, but the Committee pointed out that there is the occasional delay in arranging for summary cases to be heard. Therefore, I urge that if it is right to take into account the period spent by a person in prison while awaiting trial it should be the whole period and not merely the period after committal.
I referred earlier to the expedition with which the Government have dealt with this Report. What a contrast this is to the way the Government have been handling some other necessary reforms in our criminal administration. The Report of the Streatfeild Committee pointed out that the recommendations made by the Byrne Committee on Depositions, in 1949, has not yet been implemented and I would remind hon. Members that one of the main recommendations of that Committee was that a sufficient number of sittings in each week should be set aside to ensure that all indictable cases are dealt with regularly and promptly.
All who are familiar with the long cases that come for trial know that committal proceedings in the magistrates' courts take a long time. They are often heard with long gaps between them for short periods on different afternoons. What a saving there would be, not only for the accused person but to everyone else concerned, if that recommendation were adopted.
I notice that the Report of the Aarvold Committee—the Inter-departmental Committee on Magistrates' Courts in London—has just been issued. That deals with many important things in connection with magistrates' courts, but not with the point which I am putting, and I should have thought that the opportunity might have been taken to have dealt with the matter in this Bill.
The Streatfeild Committee's Report refers to
a body of opinion which takes the view that the present procedure is outmoded and that the evidence should no longer have to be heard by the magistrates in every case and then recorded in sworn depositions.
It goes on:
This radical reform, which would result in a substantial saving of time in magistrates' courts,…
I realise that the Government may say that the Bill under discussion deals only with the recommendations made by the

Streatfeild Committee. But, after all, it is a very important Bill carrying out very important reforms—and carrying them out essentially for the purpose of having cases dealt with expeditiously and to avoid delay. Why was this opportunity not taken to adopt these other methods which would certainly have assisted considerably the aims of the Bill, to deal with these matters expeditiously and to avoid delay?
May I suggest a further necessary reform which should have been dealt with in the Bill? The Tucker Committee was appointed in June, 1957. It reported in July, 1958, and made unanimous recommendations with regard to the publication of detailed evidence in committal proceedings before the examining justices. I know that the Attorney-General supported those recommendations. Indeed, he gave evidence in their favour. That Committee was asked to deal with the matter with a sense of urgency in 1957. The Committee did so. It handled the matter as an urgent and important one. The Committee held a considerable number of meetings, heard evidence and, as I say, reported in July, 1958.
More than three and a half years have passed and not only has nothing been done to implement any of its recommendations, but there has not even been an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter—a matter which, in 1957, this Committee was told to deal with urgently and as a matter of importance. I emphasise that because I have raised this matter on a number of occasions without receiving any reply. I hope that something will be said today so that hon. Members will know just what are the Government's intentions. I hope that there may be an opportunity of inserting something in the Bill during the Committee stage to deal with the recommendations made by the Tucker Committee.
I welcome the Bill and the reforms it initiates. I think that it goes a long way to solve the problems dealt with by the Streatfeild Committee.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: It was not originally my intention to participate in the debate, bust there have been so many interesting points raised that I am grateful to have this opportunity of commenting on some of them.
At the beginning of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) laid great stress, as have other speakers, on the delay in criminal proceedings and the great improvement that the Bill will make in the affairs of the administration of criminal justice. The Bill should, and almost definitely will, cut down many of the delays about which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North complained, delays, that is, in bringing criminals or alleged criminals to trial. We hope that the Bill will lead to an improvement in the statistics set out in the Streatfeild Committee's Report.
This is largely to be done by the appointment of new judges, supported by a reorganisation of our circuit system. There is another aspect of delay which, I hope, will be assisted after the Bill becomes law. The judges have, naturally, felt the weight of the number of cases which is placed upon them. This has led from time to time to another type of inconvenience and delay, namely, the gross overloading of lists on circuit and elsewhere. By the appointment of more judges and by the reorientation of the circuit system, the pressure should be taken from the judges so that there will not be the overloading of lists which there has been from time to time on circuit and elsewhere.
On occasions, witnesses, sometimes medical witnesses, or witnesses with important jobs to do, are kept waiting all day, until perhaps five o'clock in the evening, just kicking their heels in the corridors with virtually no chance of the case in which they are concerned coming on, but they have to wait because some other case might collapse, or the judge might have half-an-hour to spare while a jury is considering its verdict.
That has been a feature of the past and one which will be alleviated by the Bill. Judges will not feel it absolutely imperative that every moment of their time must of necessity be filled. They may feel that they have greater leisure and are in a position to organise their lists in a way which does not involve periods of substantial delay for witnesses and for counsel, although, of course, counsel are of much less importance.
In a most interesting speech, the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) expressed his devotion to the proposition of having legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions supported by lay magistrates. This is a proposition to which I subscribe, and, like the hon. and learned Member, I view with some suspicion the Clause which makes it possible for a chairman of quarter sessions to sit alone if justices are not available. This is a principle of some danger which will have to be watched most carefully.
The overall proposition of having a legally qualified chairman sitting with lay justices is, as I say, one to which I subscribe. In this context, I would refer to the question of the training of magistrates. It was referred to in another place and, in my submission, it might well have been dealt with in the Bill, although it is not covered directly by the Streatfeild Committee's recommendations. One of the great values of the Bill is that it ties up many loose ends and strengthens the position of the magistrates. Here was an opportunity to put the question of the training of magistrates on a more regular basis.
During the very few moments that I have been out of the Chamber, I turned up the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, the du Parcq Commission, which reported in 1948. It dealt with the question of the instruction of justices in their duties and stated:
What we think is possible and should be done is to train justices to understand the nature of their own duties rather than the substantive law that they administer".
That is a proposition to which I think we would all subscribe. At the moment, there are most admirable training courses organised on a local basis by the committees of the justices and clerks to the justices. There has been an interesting correspondence in The Times on the subject of the quality of such courses. I do not feel in any way qualified to comment on that, save to say that, reading the correspondence, one notices that some doubts are cast on the efficacy and efficiency on some of the courses. But some are of the highest order.
What is a little disturbing is that so many of the magistrates who attend the


courses do not need to do so. The keen ones, the ones who know their rules of procedure and rules of evidence, attend, while those who could do with a course do not attend, and there is no compulsion on them to do so. I should have thought that it was appropriate to deal with this problem in the Bill and to make sure that magistrates receive some instruction in the rules of evidence; and particularly in these days, when the means of dealing with a criminal are more manifold than they were in the past, that they should be instructed in what they can do by way of sentencing a person who is found guilty. This would strengthen the position of the magistrates and would thus strengthen our legal system.
I should now like to comment on some of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill who took it upon themselves to criticise the Clause in which the appeals committee of quarter sessions is done away with. I have the temerity to take up arms against them secure in the knowledge that I am supported by the Streatfeild Committee and by my own Front Bench. I should like to deal with the arguments put forward on a practical basis. Precisely the same people tend to sit on appeals committees as sit at quarter sessions. With an occasional exception, that is what happens in my experience. In these circumstances, the preservation of the appeals committees is doing no one any good.
The existence of an appeals committee as a separate entity from quarter sessions leads from time to time to somewhat ridiculous results. For example, recently, to my knowledge, a person was committed from a magistrates' court to a quarter sessions appeals committee under Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, for sentence. This young offender was put before quarter sessions through another body. The same bench sat as quarter sessions and as an appeals committee, yet it had to go through the farcical business of constituting itself first as a quarter sessions and then as an appeals committee. It had to defer one case and then, in this schizophrenic situation, change itself into an appeals committee. That is the sort of thing which happens in practice. I would give

my support to the Clause which does away with appeals committees.
All in all, the Bill has been universally welcomed on both sides of the House. In spite of the fact that he is not present, I should like to comment on the most interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the hazards of going into the Chancery Division. As a common lawyer, I have always been conscious of those hazards, but for the first time I realise their degree. Friends of mine who practise in that Division say that it conducts its affairs on the highest level, and the 87 steps to which reference has been made gives even more point to that than I could. One can subscribe to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the need for better accommodation, not merely in the Chancery Division, but in other divisions of the High Court and in courts throughout the country. That is a point of general application.
Some of the courts—the Probate and Divorce courts, for example—not only have the hazards which are experienced in the Chancery Division, but during the summer months, often at the crucial point of one's cross-examination, the peals of "oranges and lemons" come loudly and clearly through the windows, which, one might sometimes feel, is an interesting comment on one's attempts at cross-examination.
I know that the Government Front Bench will give close attention to all these matters of accommodation. The Bill does much to streamline and to assist the administration of justice and it will command respect from all sides of the House.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: It was correctly anticipated when the debate began that this would be a lawyer's holiday. I certainly am diffident about creating an atmosphere which would in any way mar the holiday which has taken place. I listened with care to the interesting speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), and I noticed his emphasis upon his belief that it would be inappropriate for a solicitor to take a place on the bench in this country. Despite the obvious provocation of remarks of that kind, I do


not want to pursue that aspect, but rather to pursue an aspect raised in another place by Lord Silkin and which has been touched upon here today, namely, whether the fact that we now create more judges may not in the long run—certainly not in the short run—lead to dilution and to lowering of the quality which is so essential if the great tradition of English justice is to be maintained.
I am aware that 53 judges is a very small number, but the fact that it is so small means that their responsibilities and their need to be of considerable quality is the greater. When this matter was raised in another place, the Lord Chancellor gave many reassurances and spoke of the fact that there was no difficulty on his part in selecting judges whom he considered to be of suitable quality. I am, however, aware of the disquiet which has been expressed that there seems to be a great change in the quality of those who one day will be expected to be judges and who have entered the profession in more recent years.
I am aware that there are considerable difficulties which have resulted, for example, in the fact that the statistics prepared annually by the Bar Council show a disquieting decrease in the number of persons called to the Bar or continuing as practising members of the Bar. In 1959 and 1960, for example, 62 barristers who had been in practice for over ten years ceased to practise, while no fewer than 27 who had been in practice for under ten years turned to other occupations.
Faced with a situation of that kind, and faced with similar dangers which occur among solicitors in an endeavour to attract greater numbers to the profession, it is to the credit of the Law Society that that body has taken considerable action whereby it has recast, or is about to do so, its whole system of education to ensure quality. The Law Society has arranged that grants will be available during training and that payment will be possible after graduation while a clerk is articled to a solicitor.
And yet, although all of us who are concerned with the quality of our justice must be concerned about the quality of the Bar, we now know that it is four

years since the Master of the Rolls, Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, in his capacity as Chairman of the Bar Council, supported by the then President of the Law Society, put forward proposals involving some form of common educational and examination system for both branches of the profession. Obviously, he had in mind a scheme which would be likely to attract more people of greater quality to the Bar. I am well aware that the Attorney-General has taken a personal interest in the matter and, if The Times is correct, on 15th June he had some hard things to say about the inability of the Inns of Court to reach collective decisions on this very question of a common legal educational system.
I would say, speaking not as a solicitor but as a Member, that the Bar must recognise fully that as changes are taking place whereby, through legal aid schemes, the community is paying out most of the incomes of a large proportion of barristers, it has duties and responsibilities to the community.
The days when Bar students could be maintained for years are over and now, in many cases, the cream of our young men are turning their backs on the hazards of the Bar and will not continue or submit to present arrangements, which, historically speaking, are founded on considerations of wealth and social origin, considerations which are being refuted by the community at large in favour of personal merit and ability.
The Streatfeild Report has directed attention particularly to another aspect of the need for care to be taken in the education of those who contemplate joining the Bar and, ultimately, the Bench. In paragraph 299 of its Report, the Committee recognises that sentencing is an emergent branch of the law. Some of us may consider it a rather sad comment, if not a bitter one, on the present system that the Report has to recommend judges to visit penal institutions. One would have thought that that would have been done long ago.
Is it not the case that although a barrister may come to the point of being a judge, well equipped with a vast knowledge of law, it may equally be the case in many instances that he has no knowledge of penology or criminology? A solicitor lacks any formal education


in these subjects, too. He may know little about the etiology of delinquency, but at least empirically, if he has a sufficient desire he can learn something by his very contacts with the roots of crime.
By the way that matters are now arranged, however, the barrister is deliberately and completely insulated from any contact with the criminals with whom he has to deal. That is why he can arrive at the position that when he has to impose sentence, he has no knowledge other than a layman's knowledge of the people whom he has to sentence or recommend for this or that treatment.
Although it would be desirable for these people to have the training long before they get to the bench, I should like to ask specifically whether the recommendation made by the Streatfeild Committee in paragraph 299 that there should be available a standing booklet on sentencing is being implemented. This may seem an elementary matter, and it only shows the gaps that exist in sentencing policy that at this belated stage it has been thought necessary to introduce a booklet. I should like to know whether steps have been taken for such a booklet to be prepared.
The Streatfeild Committee, too, made a recommendation concerning the creation of a central authority to which a sentencer can notify his interest in a certain case so that he may receive regular reports on the progress of the offender in the institution and during after-care. Is such a central authority in course of preparation?
It is because of the inadequacies that, by his very training, must often afflict a sentencer that I welcome the recommendation which is intended to provide that fuller guidance and information be given from probation officers to the sentencer. The Committee, however, has certainly not overstated the position in paragraph 363 when it says:
…our recommendations will substantially increase the number of enquiries made by an already hard-pressed service".
These recommendations, as the House knows, would make it mandatory on the probation officer to prepare reports of all cases where the accused does not object or is under 30 or has not been previously convicted. That requires not the probation officer alone but the police, the

prison authorities, and, ofttimes, the medical officer to make reports.
Each Session I am in this House I find that there is another Bill placing more and more burdens upon the probation officer It is very easy for us to pass these Bills or to implement these recommendations, but they fall upon the hapless probation officer. I know what happens when one discusses these matters with any city probation officer. Typically, he has at any one time hundreds—at least scores—of juveniles and adults upon whom he has to make reports each year to the magistrates and very often scores of reports as matters stand at present on juveniles in custody, and now to the attendance officers who are in charge of the attendance centres.
Now, too, we have made him, under the Adoption Acts, the guardian ad litem, and we have given him more recently the duty of after care after a person's release from a detention centre. He has probation orders by the score to follow up. Under the last Act, the Matrimonial Proceedings Act, we even make him a vicarious parent. Now he is having thrown upon him the massive burdens of this Streatfeild Report. I think we are entitled to ask as to what is happening to the Departmental committee which is dealing with the probation officers. I believe I am correct in saying that we were told at the end of November that we should have its report very soon, but in view of the fact that we are told that this scheme is being implemented under the Streatfeild Report we are entitled to know when we may have the report which will deal with the position of the probation service and whether that report meets the needs of the recommendations of the Streatfeild Report.
There is, however, another factor about these reports which I regard as of such importance that it should not be left, to Committee, as was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), because the extension of these reports, the reports to come from probation officers, from prison authorities, reports which have to come if necessary from medical officers, introduces, in my view, a new and disquieting if not sinister element into the procedure in our criminal courts.
It is not, of course, only probation officers' reports which come under these recommendations, and which must be available now, if these recommendations come into effect, to the judge 24 hours before the trial of the accused. So must the police report and the report of the prison authorities, and, if appropriate, of a doctor. It is intended under these recommendations before the trial begins that the judge will have directed to his attention all the previous convictions of an accused, all his domestic and family circumstances, the date of his last discharge from prison, his general reputation according to the police, his associates, his employment record, all, in short, that is to be known about the accused and which may be in any way regarded as related to or relevant to his alleged culpability.
The innocent man without a conviction or an innocent man under 30 living, perhaps, with someone not his wife, and who will have pleaded not guilty, will be facing a judge who will have full knowledge of all his faults and all his failures. I put the question, does not this recommendation, that the judge should know all this before the trial begins, drive a coach and four through our passionate belief in the principle that a man must be presumed to be innocent till he is proved to the contrary? What is the point of the scrupulous rules of evidence, the exclusion of knowledge of previous convictions, of the questions dealing with character, if the judge is to know all that can be known of an accused man 24 hours before his trial begins?
Naturally, this point did not escape the notice of the Streatfeild Committee, and it is discussed in paragraph 333, where it puts forward what may be called its apologia for what, in my view, is a serious breach of a great tradition. It says that the fact that this knowledge will come before the judge 24 hours before the trial
would not in our view be open to objection on the grounds of possible prejudice. The statement would not be seen by the jury, who are alone concerned with the issue of guilt, but by the judge who"—
I think many Members of this House would be rather surpised to learn—
has already been supplied with a confidential list of the previous convictions of the person for trial.

In short, it is saying that there is in existence already this knowledge at least of his previous convictions and in these circumstances we should extend this principle and give all this information which is to be called for by order from all these various parties so that the judge knows all about the man when he goes to attend his trial.
We have listened today to the question, for example, as to whether we should have Crown courts in one place, and it has been pointed out that judges are fallible and so forth, and that a system of that kind may perhaps lead to deterioration in justice which should be administered. I accept the fact that judges are fallible and to ascribe to them Olympian detachment which enables them to give a summing-up completely free from any possible prejudice even although they will know every piece of possible information which can be collected by reports is, in my view, overvaluing the very great capacity and detachment of the judges of this country, and I think it requires great care and thought before we move forward—or backwards—in this direction.
However, even if we do not accept all that I am saying, I think that if there is not great care shown the whole of these recommendations concerning reports, which, after all, are the main part of Part B of the Streatfeild Report, will fall to the ground, for I would ask this of the Attorney-General: what advice are solicitors going to give to an accused? Even if the solicitor accepts the infallibility of the judge, surely he would be under a duty to explain to any man whom he is defending that he can either object to the probation officer about giving these reports or not; he would have to be told, and I think it would be the duty of his solicitor to explain to him, that if in fact he does object the judge will know nothing except perhaps for his previous convictions, but if in fact he does not object, the judge will have full knowledge of all that, for example, the prison authorities may think of him, or the police may think of him. I think it would be the duty of the solicitor to put it to the accused, and I think the overwhelming majority of those from whom it would be the duty of the solicitor to obtain instruction would decline to give a report, and indeed if they did, it is


possible the judge would think the accused had no record, or at least he would know very little about him even though it is desirable, according to the Report, before sentence.
All I am pointing out is that these proposals are self-defeating, and unless much more thought is directed to the question of the timing of these reports the whole of the recommendations about the information to which the judges are to have access on conviction before sentence fall to the ground. I believe—and I stress this aspect—that in any event the recommendation is dangerous, if only because it undermines our principle of the presumption of innocence of the accused. I feel that it cuts across our tradition and the notion of little delay between conviction and sentence—the very thing the Streatfeild Report is seeking—may, as a result of the timing I complain of, be sabotaged.
A few other matters connected with this important principle require clarification. I should like to know—because I cannot spell it out from the Streatfeild Report as it stands—how the man in custody will indicate his objection to pre-trial inquiries made by the prison authorities. Can I have an assurance that, if these recommendations are implemented, no attempt will be made by the prison authorities to obtain information from the accused, his employers or parents, or other outside sources, until notification has been given by the probation officer that the accused, or his solicitor, has given consent for this?
As is clear from paragraph 389 of the Report, the preparation of the prison report involves interviewing the accused. It is quite repugnant that any form of questioning should be conducted by prison staff with an accused in custody unless the accused, with the consent of his solicitor, has clearly indicated that he has no objection to this being done. This aspect of the matter is not clear from the Report, and requires clarification.
I also want to say a few words on the question of medical reports. These will now assume very much greater importance. I welcome this, and I welcome the fact that all these reports will come to the attention of the court. What I do sot welcome is the timing. I hope that these medical reports will be of

ever increasing influence in helping the person who has to pass sentence to decide how a man should be dealt with.
For the most part these medical reports will come from prison medical officers. Inevitably, most of them will be directed to the mental capacity or deficiencies of the accused—his aberrations, eccentricities and background; the sort of knowledge one would expect from a psychiatrist with experience in dealing with delinquents. On 15th December, 1960, I asked the Home Secretary about the number of prison medical officers who held diplomas in psychological medicine. In a Written Answer he said:
Few prison medical officers who submit reports to court on the mental condition of inmates possesses a recognised psychiatric diploma, though all have experience in the diagnosis of mental disorder and the majority are approved by local health authorities for the purposes of Section 28 of the Mental Health Act, 1959."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 74.]
This reply caused some comment in the medical Press. A former prison medical officer commented:
It is of interest to speculate upon what the Home Secretary meant by ' experience in the diagnosis of mental disorder'.
I submit that these reports will, unfortunately, come from men who, whatever their intentions may be, are not fully equipped to deal with the matters in hand and which will be of direct importance to the sentencer. The doctor went on to say:
It only takes two years working in an approved hospital to sit for the D.P.M. so that many of the medical officers in the prisons without a diploma in psychiatry"—
and they are the majority, according to the Report—
must either be failed D.P.M.s ' or have worked in the psychiatric field for less than two years.
The doctor, who is a psychiatrist, commented:
It also has to be acknowledged that often the first year in psychiatry is spent in the wards with chronic deteriorated schizophrenics, etc., and not in the sort of atmosphere that leads to an interest, and perhaps expertise, in appraising the neurotics, the sociopaths and the inadequate personalities ', this latter group forming the diagnosis in some 47 per cent. of all the state of mind reports made from H.M. Prison, Brixton in 1957.
There clearly needs to be a reconsideration of the method by which we can induce more psychiatrically trained


people to enter the prison medical service, if the reports which are to be submitted as recommended in the Streatfeild Report are to be of any real value.
The prison medical service is an hierarchical structure and the medical officer entering the service with two, three or more years previously spent obtaining psychiatric experience and a diploma is, unfortunately, not granted any seniority or additional pay; nor, indeed, is he certain to be given a full opportunity to work in the psychiatric field. I hope, therefore, that this debate will be brought to the attention of the Home Office, in order to see what can be done to improve the quality of psychiatrists in the prison medical service, so that, in the long run, we shall have doctors who can make medical reports which will be of great value to the judges who have to pass sentence.
Now I would like to turn to a matter actually dealt with in the Bill before us. Under Clause 2 provision is made for the appointment to the position of assistant clerks of assize of persons other than banisters or solicitors. I assume that such officers will have delegated to them the duties of assessing the remuneration and the fixing of the costs of solicitors both in respect of prosecutions and in cases under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930. I know it is the view of the profession that it would be a retrograde step to assign such duties to officers whose previous experience does not qualify them to take on such an onerous task. These officers will have no up-to-date experience of work in solicitors' offices, or of the methods of assessing solicitors' costs, or of the ordinary day-to-day expenses and overheads incurred in running solicitors' offices.
If I were making a special plea in respect of solicitors' costs I might be regarded as very biassed, but I believe that the Law Society itself is going to make a report stating that the present procedure for the taxation of costs by clerks of assize is unsatisfactory. If assistant clerks of assize, who are unqualified men, are also to be allowed to undertake this duty the position is likely to become still more unsatisfactory. It is not only a question of solicitors' costs; it is a question of making certain that solicitors will defend those who are in trouble. In a recent speech the President

of the Law Society indicated that for every nine vacancies at present only one solicitor is available. Since many solicitors are now in a position where they can exercise a great deal of choice about the work they will do, unless the present unsatisfactory position about the taxation of costs is remedied they will be deterred from acting at all in criminal cases.
Finally, I want to deal with a very local matter, concerning South Wales. Paragraphs 182 and 183 of the Streatfeild Report deal with the County of Glamorgan. Paragraph 182 says:
The assizes for the county of Glamorgan are at present held at Cardiff in the winter, at Swansea in the summer, and at Cardiff and Swansea alternately in the autumn.
Representations have been made about the great difficulties arising, owing to the fact that:
Most of the population of the county is grouped round one or other of these towns, and every term a large number of defendants, solicitors and witnesses travel the 50 miles or so between them.
The Streatfeild Committee made a most sensible comment. It said that a prima facie case had been made out, and suggested that it should be possible for the judges to start at Swansea each term and then visit Cardiff before going to Newport and Chester. They certainly were directing their minds to the problem.
It is notorious that a large waste of public funds takes place when herds of witnesses, police officers, solicitors, and counsel all have to track 45 to 50 miles each time the assize is being held in one or other of the towns. The situation could be simply remedied if all the cases which are convenient to be dealt with in Cardiff so far as witnesses and all the other staff are concerned were set down for Cardiff, and those that affect Swansea were dealt with in the same manner.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has indicated the difficulties of the peripatetic system. It is a view that I substantially share with him, as do most solicitors who have the burden of trying to support it administratively. In this case, in Glamorgan, there is a simple remedy. I am very much disturbed to learn that despite the fact that a large amount of public money is wasted because this system is not yet


working, certain influences have been at work to make sure that this recommendation is not followed. I earnestly ask, since I know that it is a matter of great concern in South Wales, that it should be reviewed, and that the hint given by the Streatfeild Committee should be taken, so that there is the possibility each term of a judge being both at Cardiff and at Swansea.
I have spoken longer than is my wont, but if I have made some points of criticism of the Bill and of the Report it is not because I do not believe that in a very substantial way it is a progressive Bill.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: It is not my wish to take up the time of the House for too long, but I speak as a layman and as a citizen of a city which will be affected by one Clause in the Bill. I refer to Clause 3, which relates to the appointment of a High Sheriff for the Sheffield Assize Division, which, for the purpose of the appointment of a sheriff and the execution of his functions, will be known as "Hallamshire".
Perhaps the House will forgive me, and will not regard it as irrelevant, if I draw attention to the term "Hallam-shire". It is a county that does not exist on the map. Hallam is the name given to the constituency which I represent in this House. The boundaries of this constituency are well known, but it is only part of the shire known as Hallamshire. It embraces the whole of Sheffield and covers the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Walder), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom), Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths).
The boundaries of Hallamshire have been rather nebulous. It is, after all, a shire within a shire and the boundaries have always been in dispute. In 1638, the Earl of Shrewsbury's baliff defined Hallamshire as embracing the parishes of Sheffield, Ecclesfield Bradfield, and

subsequently that of Handsworth. By the seventeenth century the boundaries had become vague, particularly as an administrative area, although geographically the boundaries are still clear in men's minds. In 1624, the Act by which the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire was incorporated specified that its authority should extend throughout Hallamshire and six miles around it. There is a map in the Cutlers' Hall of Sheffield at present showing the boundaries of Hallamshire as such and the extent of the authority of the Cutlers' Company in Hallamshire. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will forgive me raising this, but it is a geographic fact of interest to the citizens of Sheffield.
The main provisions of the Bill, which are, of course, to speed up the process of justice, will be welcome throughout the country and particularly in my city. My attention in discussions that I have had with people concerned with this matter has been drawn to the note on page 143 of the Streatfeild Report. Note 1 states:
This has probably been the most hard-pressed circuit in recent years;
This is a reference to the North East circuit.
Extra assizes have been held and the commissioners have sat frequently.
The note goes on to state:
In 1959, despite the extra assizes and 20 days' work by commissioners, there remanets at all towns and an estimated 93 judge-days would have been required to clear the work.
It also states:
It may be thought desirable that, with the York assizes regularly clashing that for the Leeds and Sheffield assizes, there should in future be two High Sheriffs.
This has been brought to my attention and Clause 3 is, therefore, being welcomed. The Bill when implemented could well justify a speeding up of the long prepared proposals by Sheffield City Council for the development of its city centre. In the development plan for Sheffield it is scheduled that one day—it may be many years hence—a road should pass through the area now occupied by the present courts. But development plans can be changed, and it is my belief that the Bill will provide a reason to accelerate consideration of the construction of separate magistrates' courts in the new civic centre envisaged for my own city.
Comment on one of the general Clauses of the Bill has been brought to my attention during the Recess including comment from this year's President of the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society to the effect that until a few years ago the congestion was such that Her Majesty's judges spent nearly the whole of their time dealing with criminal work and were left with no opportunity of dealing with the many civil actions which were entered in the list.
On page 14 of the Streatfeild Report there are two comments:
But the judges organise the work as a team. The civil judge may take pleas of guilty on the first few days, and if the calendar is short, the criminal judge may have some time over at the end of the Assize for civil work.
This has caused serious dislocation and delay.
When the Sheffield assize became an established fact it was intended that this move would do away with the arrears both in criminal and civil cases. Everyone in my area will support the recommendations of Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his Committee that a person accused of a crime shall be brought to trial as soon as reasonably may be. This has not always been possible in the past. Quite obviously, the rights of civil litigants in the Queen's Bench Division have also to be considered.
Much expense is involved in many cases where the actions have been entered for trial and had to be adjourned because they have not been reached owing to other business. Surely all Members of this House and all citizens of the country, particularly in my own city, will welcome measures to bring about quicker trials.
We are particularly concerned with the statement at the bottom of page 5 of the Report that
in as many as 5,000 cases a year (nearly a quarter of the total) the waiting period is longer than eight weeks; and it seems indefensible that 1.600 wait for longer than 12 weeks and that 400 of the 1,600 wait for longer than 16 weeks.
This example was referred to by Mr. Justice Streatfeild.
I know that this Measure will be welcomed by all hon. Members, particularly the provision that divorce and civil 'proceedings may be dealt with as priority

matters in the criminal courts. There are many civil cases which have been waiting for years. Only too often have witnesses forgotten all the facts when a case comes up for trial and only too often are they unable to give satisfactory evidence, as it is well known that all those not connected with the law are notorious for having bad memories.
The Bill will be welcomed by all in industry, and particularly by the representatives of workpeople, as it will mean, I hope, that many of the civil cases which involve problems of workmen's compensation may be dealt with more quickly and the infliction of hardship avoided. Finally, may I take the opportunity of endorsing and welcoming the measures outlined in the Bill, particularly as they affect the people in my own city.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Attorney-General must be gratified at the chorus of congratulation and approval with which this Bill has been welcomed on both sides of the House and not least by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) who, with his special local knowledge, endorsed the proposal to create the new county of Hallamshire and gave the House such an interesting disquisition on the history of that part of Yorkshire.
The only serious discordant note was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who levelled a sustained barrage of criticism. I noted, however, that his criticism was directed much more against Part B of the Streatfeild Committee's Report than against Part A with which the Bill is primarily concerned. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend was wise, because it is only during the Second Reading debate, and not during the Committee stage discussions or the Third Reading, that we shall have an opportunity to refer to the important recommendations contained in Part B. I should like therefore, as did the Attorney-General, to begin by referring to the most important recommendations in Part B.
In the second part of its Report the Streatfeild Committee was charged to make recommendations regarding the provision of information necessary to the courts to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders.


It emerges from the Report that the Committee realised that in these days the problem of deciding on the appropriate sentence for a convicted prisoner is a much more difficult task than that of determining guilt. Indeed, one paragraph of the Report quotes the fact that nearly all the sentencers who gave evidence mentioned that passing sentence was one of the most difficult judicial duties. It is noteworthy that so much attention is being given today to this aspect of criminology.
There was a time, as the Attorney-General and others have recognised, when sentences for crime were decided almost by rule of thumb, what the Report refers to as the "tariff system". In recent years it has been recognised, with the advance of penology and the greater variety of forms of detention which are available, that far more care is required in determining what is the proper sentence. I am not sure that everyone recognises that today there is such a wide range of sentences available. In addition to imprisonment of the ordinary type, there is corrective training, preventive detention, Borstal training, detention in a detention centre, attendance at an attendance centre and detention in an approved school. The whole burden of Part B of the Report is directed to ensuring that judges, and all who pass sentences, are supplied with adequate information to enable them to award the most appropriate sentence in the interests of the public and of a convicted person.
The Report exposes the existing limitations and short-comings of that part of our judicial system. In another place the Lord Chancellor indicated that it was the intention of the Government and the Home Office to give effect to these recommendations by administrative action. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to amplify that assurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was concerned about some of the possible disadvantages of requiring probation officers to make pre-trial inquiries. I do not share his disquiet in that regard, but I am very concerned about the additional duties to be imposed on probation officers if, as I understand and hope to be the case, the Government intend to implement these requirements by administrative action.
For example, in future, according to paragraph 336 of the Report, a probation officer's report will include, as part of the essential details, particulars of the offender's home surroundings and family background; his attitude to his family, and their response to him; his school and work record and spare-time activities; his attitude to his friends; his attitude to the present offence and his attitude and response to previous forms of treatment following any previous convictions; detailed histories of relevant physical and mental conditions and an assessment of his personality and character.
Moreover, the Report definitely encourages probation officers not to be afraid to express quite definite opinions about the kind of sentence they think appropriate. I mention these matters because it is quite obvious that if due effect is to be given to the recommendations in the Report, the consequence seems to me to follow that the whole status of a probation officer will be considerably enhanced. His duties will be much greater. Far greater reliance will be placed upon him by the judiciary. At present, as stated in the paragraph of the Report quoted by my hon. Friend, paragraph 363, there is a shortage of probation officers. If these new duties are to be faithfully undertaken, it follows as a necessary consequence that there will be a considerable increase in the number of probation officers required, and some consequent expense. I hope that the Home Office will not flinch from the consequences which, as it seems to me, are implicitly involved in the carrying out of the recommendations in Part B of the Streatfeild Report.
Having said that, may I make a few observations about some of the provisions in the Bill. Most are matters of detail which may be more conveniently dealt with during the Committee stage. But some important points have emerged from this debate. I add my congratulations to the Streatfeild Committee on the thoroughness with which it has reviewed the problem and to the Government on the expedition with which they have carried out the recommendations.
In a nutshell, the proposals put forward provide for a more expeditious system of dealing with criminal offences


and in particular for removing the present state of affairs, which the Committee described as indefensible, whereby so many persons have to spend more than two months, some more than three months and a smaller number more than four months between committal and trial. Broadly speaking, the proposals embrace four kinds of change in our administrative arrangements. They enable some cases now triable only at assizes to be taken at quarter sessions. They extend the cases which, with the consent of the accused, can be dealt with summarily but which now have to go to quarter sessions. They involve a considerable extension of the "convenient court procedure". Most important of all, they involve a complete reorganisation of the present system of assizes and quarter sessions with considerable changes in the present system of circuits.
As one of the incidental consequences of these changes, I support wholeheartedly those provisions in the Bill which transfer to the Lord Chancellor responsibility for fixing the remuneration of recorders, deputy and assistant recorders, as well as paid chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. It seems highly desirable that we should take this opportunity of putting an end to the scandalous under-payment of recorders which has existed for so long. All of us know of cases in which it has been a matter of real sacrifice and hardship for a person to accept the office of recorder. I also support the suggestion made in the Report—which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members—that opportunity should also be taken to put an end to the anomalous—indeed, intolerable—hardship which recorders suffer in having to pay taxation on the inevitable expenses of performing their duties.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the proposal for the appointment of additional judges. I support the observations made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that this Bill would seem to be an ideal vehicle for making the change which would enable solicitors to be eligible—certainly for appointment as recorders and deputy recorders—and I would go further and say, for any judicial office. Like the hon. Member for Crosby, I

must disclose an interest because I also am a solicitor. At the same time I would disclaim any ambition for any judicial appointment.
This problem of the judiciary to which a number of hon Members have referred is obviously a difficult one and obviously an important one. I was not struck by the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who objected to the proposals for strengthening the ladder of promotion whereby there would be more promotion to the High Court from the county court. His objection seemed to be that it would impair the independence of the judiciary to provide more hope of promotion. That seems totally ill-founded. One knows that in practice the independence of the judges to give fearless and impartial judgments in all cases is in no way impaired by the present system under which judges are promoted to the High Court, to the Court of Appeal, and hence to the House of Lords. It seems that the same principle would apply equally if there were greater recourse to the field of recruitment to the High Court from the county court bench.
In regard to the eligibility of solicitors it seems also anomalous that whereas a solicitor is qualified to act as chairman or deputy chairman of quarter sessions, he should not be eligible for appointment as a recorder or deputy recorder. Some solicitors have had very nearly as much practice in advocacy at county courts as some members of the Bar who become High Court judges. Apart from that, I think all of us know a number of distinguished members of the solicitors' profession who by their general ability, experience in practice and in other fields such as chairmen of Royal Commissions and Commissions of inquiry would be well-qualified to adorn the judicial bench.
All that is suggested is that opportunity should be taken in this Bill to remove the present bar of ineligibility. On this whole subject of the two branches of the profession I record my view, which I have held for some time. I do not think the watertight division of the legal profession into two branches is in the best interests either of the profession or of the public. I believe that eventually we shall move towards fusion, which


would be welcomed both by the profession and by the public. Already considerable judicial services that are rendered in the administration of criminal justice by solicitors as chairmen of quarter sessions, as stipendiary magistrates, and in other respects.
I share the disquiet, which was expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill, and also by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), about the provision in the Bill that a qualified chairman of quarter sessions should be able to sit alone. I think that is an unfortunate recommendation. I do not know whether it is necessary in the interests of expedition. I think it must tend to diminish the significance and status of magistrates generally. I hope that on reflection the Attorney-General may think it an unwise provision in the Bill.
In this context I endorse what some of my hon. Friends have said on the general question of the desirability of improving existing schemes for training magistrates, I hope some attention will be given to the wider question of recruitment of magistrates. There was an important article in The Times on this subject the other day. No doubt the Attorney-General is familiar with it. A quotation was made from an October number of the Criminal Law Review expressing the opinion of a chairman of quarter sessions that about one-third of the justices on petty sessional benches are competent, one-third are passable and one-third ought not to be there at all. I have heard similar comments in different parts of the country. It is a situation which calls for attention by the Government.
Various suggestions have been made for widening the field from which lay justices are recruited. One suggestion is that there should be advisory committees. Another is that the Lord Chancellor should make freer use of recommendations by the local county court judge, the local law society and chairman of quarter sessions. Another suggestion is that there might be an increase in the practice of lay magistrates sitting with a stipendiary. Since we are in this Bill imposing additional duties on magistrates and transferring to their competence certain classes of criminal case with which they have not previously been able to deal, it is important that more attention should be

given to the general recruitment of magistrates.
That brings me to make two short references to two matters which are omitted from the Bill but which I hoped it might be found convenient to include in it. I should like to stress the Government's failure as yet to deal with the recommendations which were made in 1949 by the Departmental Committee on Depositions. There is a growing body of opinion which takes the view that the present committal procedure is outmoded and that the evidence should no longer have to be heard by the magistrates in every case and then recorded in sworn depositions. I hope that we shall be told that the Government are giving some attention to this.
Finally, there is the point about insanity which was referred to in the debate in another place but which was not very satisfactorily cleared up. Lord Chorley drew attention to three anomalies where the issue of insanity arises in criminal cases. The first question which he pointed out is whether an appeal should be allowed against a verdict of guilty but insane. I understand that this has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee under Lord Justice Sellers. The second anomaly arose from the question whether the prosecution should be allowed to raise the issue of insanity where the defence is one of diminished responsibility. I am not sure whether that has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. There was some suggestion that it might be. Is the Attorney-General in a position to tell us whether this question will be dealt with?
The third question was the very difficult but important question of whether a person judged unfit to plead should be given the opportunity to test the prosecution's case against him. It was pointed out that there have been cases in which, owing to a finding of unfitness to plead, the defendant has never had the opportunity of establishing his innocence. He is deprived of a finding that he did not do the act alleged against him. He goes through life under a slur. His guilt has never been determined, although it is generally assumed. It is quite likely that this is an obstacle to his recovery. There is the further disadvantage that the police might well


drop their inquiries on the assumption that the person found unfit to plead had committed the crime. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this question, difficult as it is, has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
With those observations, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I cordially support the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

8.5 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): We are all extremely grateful to the House for the virtually unanimous welcome which the Bill has received, and I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his Committee for the first-class job which they did.
The debate has been almost entirely professional, as was expected, but, quite rightly—we do not object—it has ranged far wider than the matters dealt with either by the Streatfeild Committee or by the Bill. I could not help admiring the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who managed to give a fervent and interesting exegesis of the hopes and fears of the Chancery Division in a Bill dealing with criminal justice administration. It was a great performance and to me something of an essay in nostalgia when he explained the via dolorosa of the 87 stone steps up which litigants and their advisers have to traipse to get to the pure fountain of justice of Mr. Justice Plowman.
This Bill does not, and does not purport to, deal with accommodation except very indirectly, but I can assure him and others who have raised the question of accommodation that this is under immediate and urgent consideration by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and that we are by no means deaf, or unalive, to the very serious and not merely inconvenient but very undignified effect which the increase in litigation has had on the accommodation which is available.
But first things have to come first, with limited resources. The House will probably agree that the provision of suffi

cient personnel and sufficiently trained personnel in the administration of justice comes before accommodation, just as it does in so many other fields. For example, in my opinion the quality of the teacher is always more important than the nature of the building. Both are important, but one comes before the other.
The only lay contribution which we had to the debate was by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not enter into this passionately-held dispute in the South Riding of Yorkshire, if there be such an area, about the exact provenance of the word "Hallam" and the word "Hallamshire". I am glad to know that a dispute which at one time looked as if it might lead almost to wrecking the Bill has been satisfactorily settled.
In his very warm welcome to the Bill, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) put two questions which he wished to be dealt with, and others have done the same. Without necessarily taking up a position, he questioned the abolition of the appeal committee of quarter sessions by Clause 4. The reasons for this were partly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), whose speech we so much enjoyed. He explained from his personal experience at quarter sessions the tremendous inconvenience, amounting in his words sometimes to a situation of schizophrenia, when a quarter sessions appeals committee had to turn itself into an ordinary sitting of quarter sessions and back again, sometimes quite frequently. It would be no argument that this was very inconvenient if the reform which we proposed would lead to a diminution in the quality of justice.
However, for the reasons which have already been given in another place that will not happen. In 1933, when appeals committees were set up, things were very different. There were not nearly so many legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions as there are now. In those days it was difficult to limit the number of justices who turned up at quarter sessions. Nowadays the rota system and other things are operating so much better that my hon. Friend will find that the quality of those who will in future listen to appeals will be just as good as


that of the old appeals committees. Therefore, the argument of convenience so well put by my hon. Friend seems to prevail.
My hon. Friend's second point concerned borough sessions. He asked whether it would not be right for the Lord Chancellor to have power to require boroughs to petition for separate sessions if they were unwilling to do so. Other hon. Members have explained the extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation which might arise if a recorder were to be forced on an unwilling borough. We accept that boroughs of this kind should be encouraged to apply. Perhaps there was a time when they were not always encouraged to apply, but that is not the view today. The view today is that they should be encouraged to apply.
If we were to wield the big stick, if the Lord Chancellor were to require boroughs to apply, we should get into an unnecessarily strained situation which would not be good for justice and certainly would not be good for local government. When the Boundary Commissions have finished their work and we see the picture more clearly, I believe that this problem, because it is a problem at present, will be found to be manageable and the boroughs in question will come forward, with encouragement, and apply for the sessions which they should undoubtedly have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to welcome the increase in the salary of recorders envisaged by the Bill. We all know that some recorders are still paid very little. Some still may be when the Bill becomes an Act. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on his appointment as Recorder of Kingston-upon-Thames. There, he does this onerous job, which very often keeps him up late at night, for the princely salary of two loaves of sugar a year, which, in spite of the reasonableness of the salary, are sometimes not paid. It is not for me to say whether his salary in this post will be increased under the new dispensation.
As this is an uncontroversial Bill I hope that the House will forgive me if I make the rather boring speech of simply answering as best I can the questions which have been raised. The next speech

was delivered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who said that he was a great believer in pre-trial inquiries in the matter of sentencing, as was the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), unlike the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).

Mr. Abse: I did not say so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Pontypool said that this was the most serious inroad into British justice, in that it would in some way prejudice the tribunal and the accused would feel that he was not getting a fair trial if all the details of his life were already known to the tribunal. I think that I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice when I make that comment on his speech.

Mr. Abse: That is far from my attitude. I am strongly in favour of pretrial inquiries, but I am not in favour of the result of the pre-trial inquiries being provided to the judge twenty-four hours before the trial. They should be given to the judge when the man has been convicted and before he is sentenced, but they should not be known when the man is presumptively innocent.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The difficulty about that proposition is that, unless the tribunal is aware of the results of inquiries in advance, it is very difficult for it to have sufficient time to consider the matter. Altthough there is provision for an adjournment to consider what sentence should be imposed, and adjournments are likely to be more frequent in the future, we do not want them to be too frequent. Although adjournments now take place in about one per cent. of cases at assizes and in about 3 per cent. of cases at quarter sessions, the Streatfeild Committee said that it would not like those proportions to become very much higher. If the tribunal does not have this information and has to make up its mind there and then, it will almost inevitably mean more adjournments.
I remind the hon. Member that the Streatfeild Committee's recommendation is subject to these safeguards. First, the jury does not know any of these things before a conviction or an acquittal, as


the case may be, is obtained. It will know none of the results of these inquiries. It never has. Secondly, nothing will be done under the Streatfeild Committee's proposals without the consent of the accused. Pre-trial reports, not merely the factual report by the police which is at present made, but inquiries into the domestic, social and educational origins of accused persons, are essential if we are to expedite the administration of justice and not have too many adjournments between conviction and sentence. Such delays can be very bad from the point of view of the administration of justice, almost as bad as pre-trial delays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) answered the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport about forcing recorders on unwilling boroughs. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the cysts of prosecutions. This is a difficult subject. The Bill does no more than the Streatfeild Committee recommended in that to a certain extent it alleviates the problem to which my hon. Friend drew attention, but only to a certain extent. The Bill adopts this principle. It says that in transferred cases and difficult court cases and in connection with the new flexibility, when a court may differ from the ordinary court which either tries or sentences an accused, an authority shall ultimately bear the costs which it would have had to bear if the normal course had been pursued.
Therefore, there will be in nobody's mind any inhibition or bar against using this new flexible procedure relating to transferred or convenient court cases because people might think that somehow the wrong local authority would have to bear the burden.
It goes further than that, because I think for the first time, and certainly to a larger extent than ever before, recovery of costs shall extend not only to the actual costs of the prosecution—that is to say, payment of witnesses, and so on—but shall also take account of the general expenses of holding the court, and a proportion of those expenses shall be refunded. It does not go further than that, and I cannot give my hon. Friend any further answer. He said that the central Government bore a large part of

the costs of prosecutions in the nineteenth century. I think that I am right in saying that that state of affairs lasted for only about forty-five years. It evidently was not considered very satisfactory, because it was altered in 1888.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to something that has run through this debate: to what extent will the Bar, the traditional source of judges, be able to supply a high standard of recruits to the Bench if the Bench is increased even by as many as five? In support of him, but in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East, I would merely repeat what was said by my noble Friend in another place; that he has no doubt whatever that at present and for the foreseeable future, there is ample talent at the Bar to fill these vacancies, and more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asked why the salaries of clerks of the peace in cities and boroughs were not being fixed from the centre in the same way as were those of recorders and deputy recorders. The answer is that in most cases these officers are servants of the local authority, and do other work as well as being clerks of the peace. I believe that two-thirds of them are also town clerks—

Mr. Graham Page: I can name at least thirty who are not town clerks, and who merely receive this particular salary.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That may well be, but the majority of them are—and most of those whom my hon. Friend mentions are part-time, even if they are not town clerks. Their work is administrative rather than judicial, and it was, therefore, thought more appropriate that their salaries—subject, perhaps, to discussion on questions of appeal if the salaries fixed by the local authorities were ridiculously low—should be fixed by the local authority whose responsibility they are.
I was also interested to hear that my hon. Friend was not quite so enthusiastic about bringing on cases more quickly—which is, of course, one of the objects of this Bill—on the ground that, in many cases, it would embarrass the defence. I think that I am right in saying that it is no part of the intention of the Bill to bring to trial anyone who wants a


reasonable adjournment. There are many cases, particularly of fraud, in which there are complicated questions of accounts to be gone into and where the defendants want a long period to prepare, but it was never the intention of the Streatfeild Committee, nor is it the intention of this Bill, nor is there anything in the Bill, to suggest that accused should be tried before they wish to be tried. Many cases, of course, have been just the reverse; the accused wished to be dealt with quickly but, owing to the incidence of the circuit system or of quarter sessions in the past, he could not get to trial as quickly as he wished.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has written to me apologising for his necessary absence, and I am grateful to him for having so written. He asked what arrangements there are to be in practice for implementing the second part of the Report. This question was put to me very forcefully by the hon. Member for Islington, East. I should like to make a statement, because, as other hon. Members have said, Part B of the Report is as important, if not more important—certainly, from the Home Office point of view, it is more important—than Part A.
We endorse the Committee's general conclusion that every sentence
…should be based on reliable, comprehensive information…
which is relevant to the objectives that the court has in view. Penal thought has, of course, been moving in this direction for a considerable time, but the authoritative statements of the Streatfeild Committee on the subject deserve attention and add impetus to the movement. When the hon. Member for Pontypool grumbles that this has not been done before—that we have not put out manuals, given instructions, and so on—all I can say is that it would have been premature to have done so. As it is, I think that we have taken the tide on the flood, because had we earlier put out a lot of manuals and circulars we should have had to revise them all since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act last Session. It is only now that in this rapidly developing field of criminology we seem to be reaching some sort of finality.
We propose to adopt the Committee's recommendation that there should be a general booklet or manual about the different forms of penal treatment available under each type of sentence, their aims and effects. My right hon. Friend fully accepts the need for such a manual of guidance for sentences but, of course, that general guidance is not enough. It will, perhaps, help my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who wanted magistrates to be trained—almost against their will, I think—but, at any rate, there will be some sort of guidance for them on the policy of sentencing.
The second aspect of the subject covered by the Committee was the provision of information relating to individual offenders. Here, the Committee made a very comprehensive series of recommendations for improving the arrangements by which courts may be given information about the personal characteristics and background of each offender. The working out of this is a task of some complication. The requirements of different courts vary. The Committee was very anxious, just as we are, to avoid duplication between prison reports, police reports, probation reports, and all the rest of it.
What we always have to remember, as the hon. Member for Islington, East forcibly reminded us, is that we must not put too much responsibility or too much weight on the backs of patient probation officers who, in any case, will have a lot more work under the new after-care provisions. Therefore, we want to see that not too many reports are called for, and that they are not called for automatically in cases where they are not really necessary. It is a complicated matter, but we certainly hope that these arrangements will begin to be put into effect in the course of the present year. I think that we may rightly claim that we are doing all we can to implement all the Streatfeild Report within a creditably short period of its publication.
I have spoken briefly because I am sure that the other matters raised by hon. Members in this most valuable debate can best be dealt with in Committee. I have not dealt with the omissions to which hon. Members have referred because, of course, we could expand the Bill—not, perhaps, in view of


its Short Title, as far as to deal with the Chancery courts, but, at any rate, a long way, and if I dealt with all the things with which the Bill does not deal as well as those with which it does deal we should have an unmanageable discussion. I must therefore ask forgiveness if I do not deal with all the omissions that others, including the hon. Member for Islington, East, have suggested. I will say one word about the insanity point that he raised. That, as he said, is being submitted to the Sellers Committee and in due course the terms of reference will be made known.
With that short and, I am afraid, rather atomised winding up, all in bits and pieces, I hope that we may get on with the work of the Bill, which is not just purring over the Second Reading but in fact getting down to the hard-headed work of trying to achieve what the whole House wants, namely, that we do a good and speedy job in getting good and speedy justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to provide for the appointment of additional puisne judges of the High Court, and of assistant clerks of assize, and to amend the law relating to courts of quarter sessions and to the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to any provisions of the said Act increasing the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court or authorising the appointment of assistants to clerks of assize;

(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;
(c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable under any enactment into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)

8.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
The sole purpose of this Order, which is to be made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, is to increase by one-third the rates of the levy payable by the wool textile industry for scientific research.
The research levy was introduced at the request of both employers and of trade unions in the industry, the first Order being made in 1950, and it has been varied from time to time since. The levy is paid by both merchants and processors of wool, payments being based on the amount of wool supplied or consumed, or on the number of persons employed during each six-monthly period. Since 1957 the levy has yielded on average £184,000 a year.
The levy is paid into a special account held by the Board of Trade, out of which payments are made to meet expenses incurred by the Wool Textile Research Council, the body responsible for co-ordinating research in the industry. Most of the expenses concerned arise from the work of the Wool Industries Research Association at Torridon, which also receives a grant from the D.S.I.R. The basis of the grant has been modified for the present quinquennium which started in October, 1961, so as to require a rather higher industrial contribution in relation to grants. It is the policy of D.S.I.R. that


industry should bear a gradually increasing percentage of research. Work is also done for the Council by universities and technical colleges.
The reason for the increase of one-third proposed, to about £245,000 a year—which, in passing, I would say is only one-twentyfourth of 1 per cent. of total turnover—is that without it the Council will not be able to continue to provide for the industry the service it ought to provide. Apart from the change in the basis the D.S.I.R. grant and the rises in costs, a new wing was recently completed at Torridon and has allowed more work to be undertaken there. New inquiries have been undertaken still further to improve the efficiency of the industry and the quality of its output.
In addition, it is considered desirable to rebuild the reserves held by the Board of Trade for the Research Council, which are likely to be encroached on this year before the levy at the increased rate can be collected. Nobody, I am sure, will dispute the great importance of research to the industry at the present time when technical developments in the textile field are taking place so rapidly and world trade is becoming more and more competitive. To be compelled to reduce the scope of research through lack of funds now, therefore, would be most unfortunate.
As required by the 1947 Act, the Board of Trade has consulted the various organisations concerned. The Order was requested in the first place by the Wool Textile Delegation, which represents 85 per cent. of employers in the industry. It is supported by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade and by the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the principal organisations representing employees. Five trade associations sent in objections, the burden of which, with one exception, was more against their being subjected to the levy at all than to its being increased. Although the objectors represent only a very small proportion of the interests affected, their objections have been carefully examined, but they do not appear to be serious enough to outweight the support given to the proposed Order by the majority of the industry.
The fact that the increase in the levy proposed in the Order has been

asked for by the largest organisation of employers in the industry and is warmly supported by the trade unions indicates that the industry as a whole values the research work which is mainly paid for by the levy and wishes to see it continued. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to approve the Order.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Am I right in supposing that the increase in the levy necessarily brings about an increase in the grant? Can he give us the figures?

Mr. Macpherson: The way in which the grant is to be calculated is now changed. By and large, the maximum grant payable at present is £70,000, on an industrial contribution to the Wool Industry Research Association of £170,000. Under the new arrangements, the maximum contribution will be £83,500, against an industrial contribution of £208,000.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: As the Minister has pointed out, this Order is made at the request of the Wool Textile Delegation, which is a very representative body in the industry and is also supported by the trade unions. I therefore think that the Order should be approved.
The research that is being carried on in the industry in undoubtedly of value, and I think this is widely recognised. We may expect increasingly competitive conditions, and under those conditions the need for research will grow. Research is carried on in a number of different institutes. Perhaps, as one of the Members representing Huddersfield, it is fitting that I should mention the Huddersfield College of Technology, but I am not unmindful of the fact that there are other places, such as the Halifax Technical College, the Bradford Institute of Technology, Leeds University, and—by no means the least important—the research station at Torridon, where, as the Minister has pointed out, a new wing has recently been opened.
One would expect the cost of this research to increase, and I think that, before we finally approve this Order, it should be made quite clear whether this increased levy is primarily due to


increased costs or is due to a proportionately lower contribution from the D.S.I.R. May I formulate my question in this way? Is the additional levy due, firstly, to increased costs of carrying on research at the existing level; or, secondly, is it due to the increased scope of research; or, thirdly, is it due to the proportionately lower grant from the D.S.I.R.? I notice that in a memorandum provided by the Wool Textile Delegation it is stated that an industry contribution of the same amount for the year commencing 1st October, 1961, will earn £13,000 less from the D.S.I.R. under the new terms of grant. From the figures which the Minister has just given, I gather that he is in agreement about that, but I think it is only right that the position should be clarified in order that the House should know whether the reason for this increased levy is primarily the reduced proportion of the grant. Notwithstanding that query, I support the Order.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I support the Order. It will, I think, be helpful. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, its history goes back for quite a time. In fact, it was the Working Party in 1947 which paid a particular tribute to the Wool Textile Delegation at that time for putting before the Board of Trade the desirability of a statutory levy for scientific research. Thus, in 1950, the Wool Textile Research Council was born.
There have been two increases since that date, and this is the third. From a perusal of the terms of the Order, one sees that the sums of money involved, despite the increases, are really comparatively small, bearing in mind the advantages to the industry as a whole.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked his question. The point he raised is important, and we should in considering the matter recognise that the terms of D.I.S.R. grant have changed materially from what they were when first instituted. Not only is a much greater contribution required to earn the level of D.S.I.R. support obtained in past years but a minimum amount of £170,000 is needed now to get any grant at all. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary

used average figures, which were fair enough, but the fact is that, last year, the industrial contribution was £165,750, which, as the House will understand from what I have said, would earn no grant at all this year were there not to be a change. As my hon. Friend explained, it requires about £208,000—I think that was the figure he gave—to get the maximum grant.
If no change at all took place, all the funds available would have to go to the Wool Industries Research Association. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) rightly paid a tribute to that Association, but he will, I know, join with me in saying that there are other organisations, such as Leeds University and the technical colleges to which he referred, which also do excellent work. This marginal amount is required if those purposes are to be fulfilled. If I remember aright, at the time when the Working Party reported, it was suggested that something like 25 per cent. of the funds collected should be available for research by organisations such as those I have instanced outside the actual organisation of the W.I.R.A. The £50,000 or so extra in an average year under the Order will be invaluable for that purpose. Those of us in the parts of the country concerned know what excellent work is also done in the other organisations to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend has spoken about certain of the industries—sometimes people rather unkindly call them fringe manufacturers—which have offered some sort of objection to the proposal before us. It is only fair to supplement what he said by saying that it is borne in mind—and the Board of Trade clearly have it in mind—that the facilities of the Wool Industries Research Association are fully available to them in their own particular branch of manufacture. Also, it is recognised throughout the industry that it is really impossible to segregate the process procedures with which they have particular connection from the products themselves which, of course, are an integral part of the wool textile industry.
I sometimes feel that my noble Friend the Minister for Science occasionally runs away with himself in—I imagine that I shall have the hon. and learned Member for Kettering with me


if I say this—his rather more "bell-ringing" type of speeches. Of the particular subject of this Order, among others, my noble Friend made a speech to, of all people, the Scottish Young Unionists. According to the report in the Sunday Times of recent date, after some very purple passages, he said:
We have been compelled by necessity to live in an age when all the old props, such as the Empire on which the sun never sets, the primacy in the old technologies of coal and steam, cotton and wool and iron and steel, have been knocked away.'
I suggest that that is less than justice to the tremendous, quiet technological work of the Wool Industry Research Association. This organisation has been doing this work for years—without all the flash and excitement—and has been finding out how far technological arrangements can incorporate new fibres, thereby producing more than before.
The House should pay some tribute to an industry that is well ahead and which deserves not only all the help it can get from this Order and the research that will come out of it but, also, a few kinder words from the Minister of Science.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: As an hon. Member in whose constituency wool is the major industry I must add my voice to the debate and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Wool Industry Research Association for all its work. I had the privilege last year of visiting Torridon, the research association under discussion. I was extremely impressed with everything I saw and I can say confidently that a fine organisation exists there.
I do not begrudge the association one additional penny that it requires. Nor have I any criticism of the research programme that goes on at that organisation. Quite the contrary. My feelings go rather the other way, for I believe that far more needs to be spent on research in the wool textile industry. Even taking account of the expenditure of the International Wool Secretariat—which is extremely important in the context of wool—more needs to be spent, particularly by the individual firms in the industry.
I do not have the precise figures, but I believe that I am not incorrect in saying that the total expenditure of the

individual firms is very low, possibly something in the neighbourhood of £50,000 per annum. As I said, far more needs to be spent on research and development, not only by individual firms but also by the co-operatively financed association we are now debating.
From time to time in my constituency there is some good-natured controversy between those in the industry who say, "There is no substitute for wool" and those who say, "We must be processers of fibres, of which wool is only one." As a layman, I endeavour to preserve a modicum of neutrality in this controversy, but I think that it would be agreed that if the wool industry is to maintain itself, vis-à-vis man-made fibres, it must spend far more on research than is at present the case.
As far as I know, expenditure on research and development on man-made fibres—and this is important in the context of another controversy that is taking place at the moment—is £3½ million a year. The total expenditure on research and development in the wool textile industry, to the best of my knowledge, is about £⅓ million per year. Doing a little simple arithmetic, spread among the 40,000 to 44,000 people employed in the man-made fibres industry and the 180,000 or so employed in the wool textile industry, it represents £70 spent on research per head in the man-made fibres industry and £2 per head in the textile industry. I agree that that is pitching the argument in the most extreme terms. As I have said, we should take into account the very important expenditure of the International Wool Secretariat. Even so, there is something here which should cause this House and the Board of Trade considerable concern.
The possible advent of the Common Market and of greater competition makes the need for research expenditure on wool even more vital. In a survey of British industry, the National Union of Manufacturers, commenting on the wool textile industry, said that, while the Common Market will benefit, for example, the more expensive end, the worsted section, it will have an adverse effect on the cheaper end because of Italian competition.
The heavy woollen industry, the cheaper end, is preponderantly situated


in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). Therefore, our constituents have a very strong interest in maintaining the competitiveness of our local wool industry. I have no doubt that they welcome the contribution that science can make and that they would warmly approve of this Order and would press for even more to be done than is being done.
Finally, I should like to refer to the Report of the 1947 Working Party an Wool. It is worth noting that it is to the Report of the Working Party that the levy, I believe, owes some of its historical origins. I would draw the attention of the House, particularly that of the Parliamentary Secretary, to the fact that other proposals were made in the Working Party's Report apart from the proposal for the levy, including one in particular of local importance which, from the Government angle, has not seen the light of day. Although the Report recognised that everything should be done to stimulate the efficiency of the industry, it also recognised that in the district with which I am most intimately associated there was a need for new industry.
I therefore hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take the opportunity of the passing of this Order to re-read the Report of the Working Party and will recognise that, though the levy which we are debating and which I think in general we all support is important, his responsibility to the people who work in the wool textile industry and who live in the wool textile areas does not end with this Order.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: Briefly, I wish not merely to support the Order, but to support it with enthusiasm. The Wool Textile Delegation has its office in Bradford, and I am glad to see that the city which I represent is notable for other things besides smallpox. If the Order is not accepted, our technical colleges will suffer, because they will not receive the grant, as there will be insufficient money for them to have a share. In our city the Advanced Institute of Technology is doing magnificent work in textiles along with the main research centre at Leeds University.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) paid a tribute to

textiles. It is right that we should consider this great industry on occasions. In the last few years, country after country and market after market throughout the world has raised barriers against our textile exports. Younger countries, newer countries, are taking on the processes of manufacturing, and even the making of wool tops is being done abroad to a larger extent. Somehow or other, the wool textile industry has maintained its place in the country's export figures. In spite of fierce competition in markets, we still hold our own and play this huge part in the country's exports. These things are essential to that progress.
It would be interesting to know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has the number of firms who contribute to the total sum. I do not have this information and it would be an interesting fact to consider. I hope that the House will approve the Order.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Having started in a woollen mill at the age of 12 and only just relinquished an up-to-date mill within the last four months, I will risk boring the House for a few minutes and at the same time will address a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for bringing the Order before us. Before doing so, however, I wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who referred to a speech by one of his noble colleagues to the Scottish Junior Conservatives. I follow it up by a speech made by the same noble Lord in another place on 15th November, when he said:
In surveying British engineering and British industry as a whole, I see two great needs which ought to dominate our thinking technologically. These are, first that British industry in general should be based on advanced technology so that it may keep abreast or ahead of its main competitors…
One has no quarrel with that. He then went on to his second point, and said:
secondly, that the traditional craft industries should no longer continue to be craftsman-based but should employ technologists with a more flexible outlook, who will need to keep a continuous watch for new ideas worth applying."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th November, 1961; Vol. 235, c. 720–1.]
If it were not for the craft element in the wool and worsted textile industry, there


would be no industry. It is no use a scientist coming to an industry like this and expecting, by having a few years' training at a university, to carry on in the industry and to be able to express himself authoritatively, because it is experience that counts.
I will give a small illustration. Two years ago I started a new dying plant with the most up-to-date machinery I could buy anywhere—stainless steel, chromium plate and all the rest—and I ran into trouble. I applied to my research association, who knew "nowt" about it. I went to I.C.I., which has a large, first-class wool research establishment and sent men along to see me. They were most co-operative, but could do nothing. I then went to a friend of mine, who happened that year to be the president of the organisation of dyers and colourers and who is the head chemist for Courtaulds. I tried them all. He came along, but we had the same sort of result.
Then, one Saturday afternoon, I thought that I would try something different. So I went to an old friend of mine, who came along and had a look at it. He had a cloth cap on the side of his head and he had a look at the way we were running. After a few expletives, which it would be most unparliamentary to repeat, he gave me the advice that I needed. We had no more trouble. Look at the trouble we should have had if we had been dependent upon technologists with a more flexible outlook who will need to keep continuous watch for new ideas worth applying!
The wool industry is the sixth most important export industry in this country, despite the fact that it is craftsman-based, and I would remind the House that until recently, until it gave way to the motor industry and the vehicle industry combined, it exported more goods by value to the North American Continent than any other industry in this country. In other words, it earns its keep.
Being a craft industry means that it has advantages and disadvantages, and a disadvantage is the difficulty of coordination of research to cover the needs and different kinds of work done in 1,500 factories. It is true that the amount of money subscribed or spent on research in a year by individual firms

in the wool industry comes to no more than £55,000. The total spent in a full year has been told to us several times, but it is a very difficult job for the Wool Research Association to satisfy the inquiries and the different types of inquiries which come from so many members.
Comparisons have been made between what is spent on research in the wool industry and what is spent by other research associations. I should like to make a comparison with the research which is done in other industries, because I feel I must do so to make my point. Internal expenditure in the wool industry by private firms is £55,000; the Research Association expenditure is £280,000; D.S.I.R. grant is included in the £280,000 and is £70,000; making a total of £335,000, which means that the Research Association is responsible for 84 per cent. of the total research done in the wool and worsted trades.
Compare that with the contribution through the research association for the chemical industry. That takes care of only 1 per cent. of the total, because in the chemical industry there are gigantic firms like I.C.I. which spend a tremendous amount of money on research. The same sort of comparison applies in the case of rayon. According to the report of the Federation of British Industries, at the time when investigations were carried out in 1960 the rayon industry had spent £4,451,000 on research. There we get the same picture—only 7 per cent. of the research being done by the research association, the remainder being done by the gigantic firms. That is one problem which hon. Members will have to consider when deciding whether it is a good thing to have large mergers and amalgamations and when considering the value of the research work going on in the larger organisations, as distinct from that carried out by the research associations which govern craft industries of this sort.

Mr. Hirst: I do not disagree with all that the hon. Member is saying, but I would point out that the mere existence of a statutory levy for a special purpose tends to concentrate some research which would otherwise be taking place on a more individual basis.


I am not trying to kill the hon. Member's case, but that addendum must be added.

Mr. Rhodes: As the hon. Member knows, a small factory, employing between 100 and 250 work people, cannot stand the cost of a laboratory, with highly paid scientific assistants. It so happens that research associations suit the set-up in this industry better, perhaps, than that of any other industry.
But what happens is that with 1,500 firms, all making many inquiries, many of those inquiries being practically identical, and with the change-over of personnel from the research association to better jobs, every time the association gets an inquiry from one of its members it has to start again almost at the grass roots. If research associations are to hold their own and develop they must start a system of case histories, which their members can consult when trouble arises in their firms. It is very difficult to cope with the demands of an industry with 1,500 factories, using perhaps as many as 1,750 different types of wool and material, but an immense improvement could be made if research associations made case histories of the problems they were able to solve, so that they could go on to other more important matters.
Up to comparatively recently there has been very little liaison between one research association and another. I can quote a case from my own experience. When I began to put in a spinning plant in my factory I quickly realised that it would be necessary to analyse the yield of the wool that I was using. That is elementary. But the people in the smaller factories, where they have used the same sort of wool throughout the years, know instantly by the feel and the look whether it is the sort of wool that they want, whether it will do the job that they want, and whether the yield is right. This is where science comes in, and that is why I am supporting the need for a more scientific approach in this industry.
I sent a sample to Australia to Dr. Lipson, who is the chemist for the Australian wool growers, asking him for his formula for the assessment of yield in the wool that I was using. I made the same request to Torridon. I could

not get any satisfaction either from Torridon or from Australia. Using the best chemists that I could get put on the job by I.C.I., I found that the Australian formula took three and a half days. The best that could be done at Torridon was a fortnight, and then it was not accurate. So I went to another research association to see what it had got. I went to the Shirley Institute in Manchester where I found that it was using a machine which had been invented to do the same job for cotton that I was trying to do for wool. But because that was over the border in Lancashire, they would not play with it at Torridon in Leeds. So I took 50 samples to the Shirley Institute, and a pattern emerged. I found that it could be done. I then went back to Torridon with my results. There was no action at that time.
After altering the machine to suit myself and making tests on wool that I had bought, and having some wool delivered, I found that the first sample was 10 per cent. lower yield than that which I had bought. That was proof of the effectiveness of my machine. I contacted the people who had sold me the wool, but they said, "No, that won't do; you do not know enough about it." I asked them to send two samples back to Australia, which they did. The person responsible came to me a fortnight later and said, "You are quite right. They say they have sent the wrong wool." So I made them pay for that installation. It was the cheapest installation that I ever had.
That was not the end of the matter. The largest exporter of scoured wool in Australia came to this country to find out how I had managed to do it. He brought with him a car full of samples. He asked where I had got the machine and I told him that it was made under licence by Howard and Bullough, of Accrington. I was asked whether I would alter a machine and I agreed to do so. The machine went to Australia and has been followed since by many others. In Australia they were able to tell the Japanese the yield in the wool before it was used in this country. Hon. Members who are interested in the industry will have noticed that a company has been formed at the docks near the wool warehouses and equipped with machines to do the job which I started


four or five years ago. Had there been better liaison between the research associations surely the cotton method would have been tried in the case of wool. Just because a thing is called scientific it does not mean it is unique. It depends on the application.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) commented on how money was spent. The amount spent is not important. What is important is how it is spent. We ought to examine every penny being voted in such cases before we make legislation. I am saying nothing against research associations which are doing a good job. I am referring only to methods of research suitable for such an industry as this one. I am trying to draw attention to certain matters with a view to improvements being made in the future.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sure that I was not the only one interested in the practical, sensible and knowledgeable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). I know very little about wool, or about Yorkshire, but sometimes I have a suspicion that, while Yorkshire is not as bad as Lancashire, it is not as good as Yorkshire says it is. But be that as it may; I do not wish to provoke any "tribal" feeling.
The Order which we are considering raises broad questions of Government responsibility in these matters. We are asked substantially to increase the levy on the trade, with a corresponding increase in the Government grant of public money. I do not think that the proportion makes much difference. It was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but if his figures are right I think that it is the other way round and that the proportion the industry has to pay is decreased. But that is a small point.
We come to the whole question of what is being done about what the F.B.I. call "Industrial Research in Manufacturing Industry", on which it issued a report last month. I found it a fascinating Report. It called attention to many things which have been mentioned in this debate. They seem to me matters which obviously require a great deal more investigation and attention than they are receiving at present. The first thing pointed out in the Report was

that the limitation on the expenditure on research activities was not only a question of money; it was also a lack of qualified manpower.
There is a standing vacancy at the rate of about 13 per cent. overall in industry's research and development departments.
That includes not only the research association bodies which we are considering particularly today, because of the structure of this trade, but also other industries where there is extensive research activity by big firms.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what the position is. If this additional levy is to be raised and, with it, an additional grant, can we be assured that there is in this case not a vacancy rate of about 13 per cent. overall in the qualified personnel required to make use of the money? If there is some difficulty in that matter—the Report says so very definitely; and the F.B.I. is not exactly a Socialist body—what do the Government propose to do about it? How will they see that this industry is sufficiently provided with personnel to use the money?
I turn to another matter. I am not suggesting that this Association, which does practically all the research in and for the wool trade, has done anything but an excellent job. All the evidence is the other way. The evidence is that it has done a very good job, but it has a great deal to do yet. What is the only thing I always associate with wool? It is moths. A final solution to the moth problem has not yet been found, or had not been in the last Report of W.I.R.A. There is a passage in that Report dealing with moths. It tells how a particular remedy was tried. It was found to have all sorts of faults and the association had not solved the moths problem.
Some things will be produced which are called moth-proof, but the other day there was a broadcast which gave considerable annoyance in Yorkshire because it suggested that they could not produce moth-proof materials. If we go through the whole Report—which is stiff reading for someone who is not a wool expert—it is perfectly clear that a great deal remains to be done.
That is not the whole story. The research in the wool industry is inseparably connected with other industries—if I may use the phrase, both


vertically and horizontally—horizontally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has indicated, in connection with the cotton trade and one particular problem. By the way, the last Report of the W.I.R.A. does not mention his activities and what happened in connection with Australia. It says something quite different about the yield of wool. Perhaps it is one of those reports which very carefully says all the good things which are being done and does not pick up every possible mistake or omission that may have been made. One understands that sort of report; even Government Departments have been known to make it from time to time.
If the wool industry is to have a research association, and if that association is to study problems, it must be connected both with research into cotton and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) said, with research into man-made fibres. That horizontal arrangement has to be coordinated in the sense that we have to see that the people who are doing one job know what people in another industry are doing. It is clear from the instance which my hon. Friend gave that they do not always know that.
The other kind of co-ordination which seems necessary is what I would call vertical co-ordination. Wool is wool, but we reach a certain stage when we are dealing with fabrics. When we look at the research associations we find that there are vertically connected industries which have their own separate research associations.
The body which is supposed to some extent to co-ordinate these is, I suppose, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. No doubt it does so, to some extent but we should make a very great mistake if we did not regard this as a general problem which will affect the manufacturing powers of this country, its competitive powers, and its competitive powers particularly in relation to other European countries, where we may soon have the possibility of increased competition in industries of this kind. I am not at all satisfied that either the Minister for Science or the President of the Board of Trade is at present in a position to say that he is ensuring proper co-ordination between

research in one industry and those other industries connected with it both, to use my own metaphor, horizontally and vertically.
I go on from that to another question which has run throughout the debate. As the F.B.I. said in the same Report:
The time is ripe for a re-examination of the situation with a view to stimulating the application of new scientific and technological knowledge in small firms.
I am not for a moment minimising the rôle of the man in the cloth cap, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that this is a matter partly for experience and partly for sheer scientific knowledge, starting from an almost academic attitude to the matter, and the two things must be worked together. But when that is done, what is the means of distributing the knowledge which is obtained? How, in the wool trade, do we get it round to all these firms?
The F.B.I. had sampled about a quarter of the F.B.I. firms in the wool trade. About a third of the firms sampled did not belong to this research association. The significant point is that these did not include any of the large firms; all the large firms which were sampled did belong to the association. But they included exactly a third of the medium-sized firms and half the small firms. If the industry is to be in small and medium-sized units and to depend for scientific research on an association of this kind—and there may be good reasons for it—we must do more than that to see that those who pay the levy—because these people will be paying the levy—make proper and full use of the knowledge which is obtained as a result of the levy and, moreover, that they are in a position to do so.
I suggest that this is a matter in which the F.B.I., with which I do not always agree, was right, and that the time is ripe for an examination of something of this sort. The same point was put in the same report by the National Institute for Economic and Scientific Research, which added a review of its own. What it said is even more widely phrased, and I quote it with agreement:
There is need for a more systematic dissemination and application of the existing body


of knowledge, for speedy and efficient communication of the results of research work done in universities, in research associations, in D.S.I.R. laboratories, in other firms and abroad.
I do not say that nothing of the sort is done. I expect that something is done. But when, on a cross-section of the wool trade or a substantial section of it, we find this comment made, I suggest that it is time that somebody was in a position to do this, and that somebody, I think, must be the Government.
I am not at all certain that the people at the Board of Trade are the right people for it. It seems to me to be a matter for the Office of the Minister for Science. I never know what it does, but here is something which it could well do. I have no doubt that in the course of time some Department or another of the Government will do it, unless it is allowed to fall between two stools, or unless the Government fall into the error of thinking that business is always right and that business can be left to run its own affairs. I do not think that it can in a competitive world such as this.
Hon. Members ought to be in a much better position to obtain available information. I obtained the F.B.I. Report from the Library without any difficulty, but I failed entirely to obtain the W.I.R.A. Report there. The Librarians had to borrow it for me They were very kind to do so. These sources of information are of vital importance and we should be able to obtain the information.
We should have much fuller reports about what the Government Department primarily concerned—the D.S.I.R.—is doing about it. The Minister for Science ought not to be allowed to shelter behind a cloud of eloquent verbiage. We ought to know what the office of the Minister for Science is doing. It is about the time that it issued an annual report. This industry happens to be a peg upon which this depends. The House and the Government should consider our position as regards information, because unless the necessary information is forthcoming there will be a great failure to apply results, a failure to bring them to the attention of people who can apply them, and a failure to co-ordinate as between one industry and another the research which is being done all over

the country by the devoted people who study these problems. They are too few in number, but no doubt, as in this case, they are excellent in quality.

9.32 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I should not have detained the House if it had not been for the very interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I apologise for not being here during the speech, which I am sure was a very valuable one, of my old friend the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes).
As regards research in various industries, particularly the woollen industry, I do not think that the answer to many of these problems is the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Discoveries are made in the day-to-day activities and the research activities of any industrialist. The difficulty is that many of these discoveries are lost in the clouds of time. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne may be trying to produce a certain finish to a piece of cloth. He produces an entirely different finish, which may be a howling success, but that year everybody wants a smooth finish. Therefore, he scraps it and it lies in the limbo of forgotten things. What is needed for the development of many industrial processes is a trade library of the failures of the activities of yesteryear.

Mr. Rhodes: That is what I said.

Sir D. Glover: I was interested to read in a newspaper recently of two famous dancers who demonstrated the twist in front of Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, in 1928. It has taken until 1962 for this dance to become popular.

Mr. Speaker: How would the activities of those dancers be affected one way or another whether or no the Order before the House be approved?

Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was using it as an example of how something can be forgotten.

Mr. Tiley: On a point of order. Twisting is a process in the textile industry.

Mr, Speaker: I adhere to my Ruling.

Sir D. Glover: My experience over many years in industry and commerce


convinces me that many things that could be valuable, particularly in the woollen industry, are discovered and then scrapped. The way they were arrived at is not registered. Years afterwards when people are looking for that very thing they do not know how to set about it and spend weeks and weeks trying to discover it. If a library of registrations and processes were set up, which every textile manufacturer knew about and could rely on, the Board of Trade would have done a valuable piece of work.
This applies not only in the woollen industry but to most processes in industry. Some of the greatest discoveries in textiles and in every form of industrial activity have been made by accident. They are not always made as a result of the vast sums spent on research. They are often discovered when someone is after a particular thing. In his efforts to produce that he produces something entirely different. It is that which two or three years later would be very valuable to our export market which should be registered and available for others to use. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would bear that in mind, it would be very helpful to the textile industry.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: By leave of the House, I shall answer some of the points which have been made. I would start by thanking the House for the welcome it has given to this Order. I am sure that the wool textile industry itself will be extremely gratified by the extensive notice taken of the Order by the House, will pay considerable attention to what hon. Members have said, and will be grateful for the general support given to the Order.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) asked how much of the increase was due to each of the three factors he mentioned: the increased cost of carrying on research at the present level; the increased scope of research; and the lower grant made by the D.S.I.R. According to the budget made, first of all, in 1961 the levy payment to W.I.R.A. amounted to £165,750 and the D.S.I.R. grant was £70,000. That was then the maximum, so in any case a new agreement would have had to be negotiated. For the current year, it is

proposed that the Council should hand to the Association £188,000, and the D.S.I.R. grant will be £72,250. Slightly lower expenditure and a slightly lower D.S.I.R. grant is budgeted for 1963, but in 1966 the levy will rise to £199,000 and the D.S.I.R. grant to £80,500. That is the general pattern.
As to the increased scope of research, as I have said, a new wing has recently been opened, and I understand that it is now being devoted to further research work. I understand that where there is an increase in cost during the current year it will to some extent be financed out of reserves until it is possible in October—as it is a six-monthly levy—to make the levy for the following year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) dealt with what he termed fringe industries, and I was very glad to have his support of the Board of Trade's view that all the industries that objected either to the levy being made on them at all or to the increase in the levy are considered as part of the wool textile industry and that the levy was properly chargeable upon them.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) made a comparison of the amounts of research expenditure for man-made fibres and for wool. He was rather answered by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—who, as usual, delighted us with his intervention—because the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it is experience that counts. After all, man-made fibres have not been going for very long and the capital expenditure on research in that industry must be very high. The capital expenditure on research in the wool industry is relatively low, but from now on it is proposed to run it at about double what it has been, which is about £10,000 a year.
There is no doubt that there is a great deal of accumulated wisdom about wool which is of immense value to the industry and to the country. That is not to say, of course, that further advances cannot be made, but I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under Lyne that the whole purpose of bringing these Orders before the House is to make certain that, as far as possible, there is no obvious waste of money. If there were, if the Association appeared to be wasting money, then


quite clearly objections would be raised by the industry itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) asked how many firms contribute to the total sum. I am sorry that I cannot give him that information tonight.
Both the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) dealt a good deal with the question of co-operation between research establishments. The research establishments are, of course, independent institutions. Many of them are grant-aided through D.S.I.R., but it is open to question how far, because of that grant aid, it would be practicable for us here to demand certain information. Of course, it is open to research establishments to supply the information to this House, and I have no doubt that the Wool Industry Research Association will take note of the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that it would be a good thing if its research reports were available in the Library, and of the fact that Members are actively interested in what it has to report.
I cannot say how far there is a direct exchange of information between research associations, but here again, as has been said, this is a matter that goes rather wider than the purview of the Board of Trade which keeps the accounts of the research association and runs it administratively, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that what he has said will be carefully ''examined. The whole question of making information available is, I think, primarily a question for the research association themselves and for their members. After all, the purpose of the contributions that are made is primarily to benefit the industry itself. It may well be that there can be advantages in the exchange of information as between industries, and I agree that that would be a matter well worth studying and for the appropriate Department to draw to the attention of the industries concerned.
With these few remarks, I hope that the House will now agree to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [19th December] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949 to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session:

Any Memoranda laid pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, and any representations made with respect thereto to be referred to the Committee:

Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Charles Doughty, Sir Barnett Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Oram:

Power to send for persons, papers, and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The best cotton firms in Lancashire are second to none in the world. We are fortunate in the Rossendale valley in having a number of firms whose names are household words in almost every land. One of them—David Whitehead & Sons Limited—has been producing cotton goods in Rawtonstall for well over one hundred years, and since the war has spent vast sums in new machinery and new plant and in pioneering modern textile designs. Its labour relations are good.
On Monday, the firm's Lower Mill, where several hundred people are employed, will start operating a four-day week for an indefinite period, a state of affairs which seems to be semi-permanent in many mills in Lancashire. Expensive machinery will stand idle, managerial optimism will be impaired and the confidence of the workers will receive a further severe shock. The case of Messrs. David Whitehead is typical of what is happening, and it was for that reason that I decided to seek this debate tonight, in spite of the fact that we last debated the subject on 21st December, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) initiated the discussion.
In the meantime, we have a clearer picture. Short-time working is difficult to assess, but there is reason to believe that 70,000 cotton workers were on short time over Christmas. There were extended stoppages of ten days in far too many mills, and the Cotton Board's quarterly statistical review for December stated:
The situation of the United Kingdom cotton industry has deteriorated further since the last issue of this review…The recession has caused a number of mill closures, widespread short time working and wastage of labour.
The tragedy is high-lighted by the fact that it is now almost two years ago since the Lancashire cotton industry completed what the Evening Standard called—
the biggest mass destruction of assets in recent times".
Two out of five spindles and two out of every five looms in Lancashire went on the scrap heap. The benefits which were hoped for have been wiped out by the heavy imports of yarn and cloth.
In my view, and in the view of many people in Lancashire, the present method of controlling imports is wholly unsatisfactory. The President of the Board of Trade, in the debate to which I have referred, said that in the case of the non-Commonwealth countries, the 17½ per cent. tariff on grey cloth
should be the Government's main weapon for protecting the industry ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1961; Vol. 543, c. 1640.]
But in countries where competition would be at a low cost, and a tariff

might not be sufficiently effective—in countries like Japan, China and Formosa—there are quota restrictions.
It is interesting to see that in the case of Formosa the quota has been fixed at 12½ million square yards a year, although the imports from Formosa were negligible until a short time ago. And in the case of Japan, the Board of Trade announced on 27th December, that Japan's quota will be increased in 1962.
With the three main Commonwealth competitors—India, Pakistan and Hong Kong—there were inter-industry agreements, but in these cases, too, the figures have been increased for 1962. The Hong Kong figures have gone up from 164 million sq. yards to 185 million sq. yards, India's figure from 175 million to 195 million, and Pakistan's from 38 million to 42 million. In fact, the total from these three Commonwealth countries has gone up for 1962 from 377 million sq. yards to 422 million sq. yards, an increase of almost 12 per cent. Now, a mission has gone to India and Pakistan to seek a similiar agreement in respect of yarn, because of increased imports of yarn from Pakistan and India.
These are the goods to which Mr. Robert Hill, General Secretary of the Rossendale Valley Textile Workers' Association, referred in the following terms:
It is our opinion, judging from a trade union point of view, that the bulk of the cloth being imported into this country is made by sweated labour, working under bad conditions, and being employed for long hours contrary to what should be allowed.
With Spain, there is the same sort of agreement, an inter-industry agreement. I understand from the Sunday Times of 3rd December that Spanish cloth is being sold in the United Kingdom at 10d. per lb. cheaper than the cost of the constituent yarn. We are now expected to be comforted by being told that the Spanish industry has accepted a voluntary cut of 30 per cent., but as imports have risen from practically nothing to 64 million sq. yds. and 11 million lb. of yarn in two years, the agreement does not appear to have any great significance.
In the circumstances, it is not surprising that Mr. Roger Lee, the Chairman of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, in his annual report published on 18th January,


referred to the help which had been given to the industry as having been
too little and too late to be effective in promoting a healthy industry.
Nor is it surprising that the Financial Times on 28th December should say:
Britain is just about the only big open market for cotton textiles left in the world.
That is perfectly true. The Common Market countries protect themselves against low-wage cloth very strictly. The United States takes only between 5 and 6 per cent. of her total supplies in this cheap cloth. The figure for France is a good deal lower. We in this country take 40 per cent.
I should be the last person to underestimate the importance of helping the under-developed countries of the world, and I believe that no one in Lancashire would wish to adopt a "dog in the manger" attitude to this problem, but we feel that, if we have this responsibility, which we acknowledge, it should be shared with the other Powers of the Western world. What are the Government doing to implement the suggestion of Sir Alfred Roberts that we should seek to get other Western countries to boost their figure of imports to 10 per cent. of their total requirements?
I do not believe that the Government are operating their anti-dumping powers with sufficient vigour, nor do I believe that inter-industry agreements, especially when Lancashire has no Government-backed sanctions behind it, can be effective. The only really effective method would be the purchasing commission advocated by the Labour Party.
What are the effects of what I regard as the Government's neglect? The overall effect, in my view, has been best described by Mr. Joseph King, General Secretary of the Accrington and District Card and Blowing Room Operatives and Ring Spinners' Association as
almost complete frustration on all sides of the industry".
I understand that order books in most cases at present are down to 10 weeks, which is generally regarded in the industry as being just about zero.
On 28th December, the Financial Times had this to say:
The chances of the home industry's holding to a reasonable level of sales by its own unaided efforts are slender…It seems certain that whatever the industry did it could not survive under present conditions.

I believe that there are three other effects. The first is that re-equipment is almost at a standstill. Mr. William Winterbottom, Chairman of the Fine Spinners and Doublers, has said that the Government's reorganisation scheme has floundered, and he added that in some ways it has been a waste of the investment, an investment which included £13 million of the taxpayers' money. The House will, I think, be shocked to learn that some of the new machinery bought under the reorganisation scheme is now idle.
Mr. Lewis Wright, General Secretary of the Weavers' Amalgamation, has made this comment:
With import conditions as they are, companies are having to think twice before they invest their money in new machinery".
Mr. Duckett, Chairman of Joshua Hoyle & Sons Ltd., one of the most progressive firms in the industry, after referring in his annual statement to the Government's "apparent indifference" to the industry's appeals, stresses that his firm will have to postpone its future schemes for re-equipment until the present situation is clarified.
The second effect is that the labour force is being depleted. At 170,000, the industry's labour force has now reached an all-time low. About 150,000 workers have left the industry since 1950. Some mills are closing and three have closed in the last few weeks. Some are able to continue only with the help of Italian and Pakistani labour. Some mills are keeping their workers on, in spite of not having full employment for them, only because they know that once they leave the industry they will never get them back. In fact, the workers have lost confidence in cotton's future.
The third effect is that production costs are increased. Because of the imports there is not enough work to keep three shifts employed and the new machinery is uneconomic unless it is worked around the clock. If the reorganisation scheme is to succeed it must be given a chance. With imports kept even at last year's level it might succeed, but if the permitted increases are taken up yet another blow will have been dealt at the industry.
If uncertainty persists, the already shaky confidence of the cotton industry's men and women will be destroyed. The


time has come when the Government, if they want a cotton textile industry at all—and many people in Lancashire now doubt whether they do—have a last chance to decide what level of production the industry should maintain and, in consultation with the workers and employers, to decide what steps can be taken to ensure its survival. Unless the Government act now it may be too late.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I am pleased to support the subject matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has raised tonight. The cotton industry is a problem industry, but I would like the House to appreciate that the problem that the industry has been experiencing in recent years is one that will have to be faced by other British manufacturing industries unless an attempt is made to plan the development of some industries in the under-developed countries and to plan the contraction of some industries in the developed countries.
The Financial Times leader of 11th December last stated:
Nevertheless, it is still true that it is easier to export cotton textiles to Britain than to any other major consuming country. With a world surplus of production capacity, it is inevitable that Britain should act as a magnet for exporters".
That is what has been happening during the last two years.
Doubtless the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will call attention to the voluntary agreements that have been entered into. He will, no doubt, speak of the decline that has taken place in imports in the last one or two quarters. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that similar statements were made in 1955 and 1958; that is, that there was then a decline in imports when a recession came in Lancashire. After that, imports rose again to new heights.
I am afraid that that will be the story again. It will be repeated unless something is done to tackle the problem. With only one thing my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale said I would not like to be associated; that our opposition to these imports is based on what is termed "sweated labour". I do not accept that position. By and large the

wages paid in Hong Kong, Pakistan and India fit into the pattern of living standards in those countries. The problem concerns the whole wealth and productive capacity of those countries rather than the level of wages prevailing in any one industry. A few years ago I voiced protests against excessive and inhuman hours of work being operated in the cotton mills of Hong Kong, but I did not do so for the purpose of attempting to weaken Hong Kong's competitive position.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

Mr. Thornton: I raised that matter not in an attempt to restrict Hong Kong's competitive capacity, but because of the human problems which arise from excessive hours of work—twelve hours a day, seven days a week, with only four days' holiday a year. I am glad to say that as a result of what I revealed in the House, and the facts that I presented, action was taken, and improvements, although not enough of them, have been made.
I wish to call attention to another aspect of this matter which has caused considerable apprehension in Lancashire recently. According to yesterday's Financial Times, consideration is now being given in the Common Market discussions to the problems of the underdeveloped parts of the Commonwealth. A breakdown of under-developed countries has been made into two main groups. The first group consists of Commonwealth countries whose trade may be damaged if the United Kingdom applied the common external tariff of the Six. The second group consists of Commonwealth countries whose major exports compete with those of the present associated territories of the Common Market countries. It seems not improbable that association will be offered in respect of the countries in the second group, but the bigger problem seems to arise from the countries in the first group.
The Report of the European Parliamentary Assembly's Foreign Trade Committee emphasises that exports from the


low-cost Commonwealth producers, such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, could endanger industries in the Common Market. It is interesting to note that these countries in the Common Market evidently attach more importance to preventing damage to their traditional industries than the United Kingdom. France and Germany import cotton textiles from low-labour cost countries to the extent of only 1 or 2 per cent. of the levels of their domestic production; and they do not rely only on their external tariff. Even the United States takes in only about 5 per cent. of the level of her domestic production. The level of imports of the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong alone is 40 per cent. of the level of our domestic production.
The Report to the European Assembly recommends that solutions for these countries, such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, should be sought not so much through adjustments in the common external tariff as through the framework of a common commercial policy within the enlarged community, including the United Kingdom. The allocation of tariff-free import quotas, voluntary restrictions on exports and the negotiation of long-term trade agreements are suggested as possible solutions.
The serious apprehension in Lancashire in the last few days arises from a fear that Her Majesty's Government are thinking of continuing this ruinously high level of cheap imports while other Common Market countries take in only insignificant quantities. A serious situation will develop if the Lancashire textile industry has to enter into competition in the enlarged Common Market when the home market of the United Kingdom is being rapidly eroded by huge imports of low-cost textiles with which no Western country can possibly compete. I urge the Government to try to persuade the Six—

Sir Douglas Glover: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If we were in the Common Market, and we took in from the Commonwealth countries a great deal of low-cost textiles which we then exported duty free to other European countries, would it make any difference to their competitive

basis whether they went into those countries direct or came into our country first?

Mr. Thornton: That is the point to which I was coming. It is becoming abundantly clear that if special provision is made for access other than over the external tariff into the United Kingdom, special precautions will be taken to ensure that those goods are consumed within the United Kingdom and not re-exported to the Common Market Six. That is an apprehension that seriously troubles Lancashire.
I urge the Government to try to persuade the Common Market Six to increase their intake, so that our intake could be reduced to the region of 25 or 30 per cent. of our present level of production instead of 40 per cent. If the Common Market Six would increase their intake from the present 1 or 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., the all-round adjustments could be made without damage to the developing countries in Asia. From that point, it would be possible for planned advance to be made by the Western countries together to increase their intake of manufactured goods from the developing countries. That is something that the Western world must face. We cannot avoid planning in this respect.
We have to face the fact, whether we like it or not—there is nothing we can do about it—that one-third of the world's economy, in the Communist bloc, is now planned. The creation of the European Economic Community was, in my view, a subconscious, if not a conscious, reflex action against the planned economies of the Communist bloc, Eastern Europe and Asia. Unless we get down to this problem in an orderly manner, planning for and making possible the expansion of manufactured capacity in the developing countries and, at the same time, making provision to cease expansion of certain industries and arranging for their orderly and gradual contraction, we shall lose out in this competitive game with the planned-economy countries which now constitute one-third of the world's population.
I do not want to trespass too much on the time of the Parliamentary Secretary and will merely add again that it gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I should like to say a few words on this important subject. The vital thing for the cotton trade is what will be the Government's policy until the time when Britain enters the Common Market. The Bolton Journal and Guardian last Friday had a headline:
Cotton up the creek again. Employers know it—Workers show it.
Lancashire Members of Parliament are all too familiar with sentiments of this kind in their local papers. They have appeared at various times over the last ten years.
The trouble concerning Lancashire is that, whatever Ministers think about it, the Lancashire textile industry does not know what policy the Government have for it. It has been a mixture of toughness with unfairness—no other industry have been treated in the same way—and political expediency just before the 1959 election, when votes were required. Now, people are being exhorted to reequip, but on what kind of basis?
It is true that over the last year there has not been an increase in imports from the Commonwealth countries of Hong Kong, Pakistan and India, which we hear so much about, but imports over-all have gone up by £5 million and exports have gone down by £6 million. This is the familiar line. The imports from those three Commonwealth countries are roughly one-third of our imports, but one-third comes also from the Continent.
It is often asked, why cannot Lancashire compete with those European countries? Whatever has been the position in the past, there is still such a lack of confidence in the future that firms who, if they spent a lot of money on re-equipment, would be able to compete with Europe, are not spending the money because they still feel that there is the danger of an open door—if not this year, next year—concerning cheap imports from the Commonwealth. So they do not really feel that there is any sound basis on which to take their risk, because even if they get themselves into a position to compete with Europe, that will be completely undermined by the completely open door action from the Commonwealth.
I believe that, no matter what the difficulties are which we shall have to

negotiate about over the next year or so, inevitably we shall go into Europe, and so I consider that there is an interim stage which the cotton trade must be got over. There is going to be a textile industry in the Europe of the enlarged Common Market. I see no reason why the cotton textile trade of Lancashire should not play a useful, economic and competitive part in that European textile industry. Indeed, I think it is quite undesirable that we should let the matter drift any further or that the textile industry of Lancashire should be almost decimated before we go into the Common Market.
I feel that the Government must now take action to give back confidence to Lancashire, confidence that they will see it through this period between now and our entry into the Common Market. When we are in the Common Market there will be, I hope, a fairly liberal import policy pursued by the Common Market countries, as was evidently the view of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), but it will not be a completely open-door policy. There will be a European textile industry and I want to see Lancashire taking a full part in that textile industry, and I do not think that it is in the interests of Britain or of Europe that the Lancashire textile industry is any further reduced in size. It is most urgent that confidence is put back into it, and only the Government can do that, by telling it exactly what they plan for its future.

10.12 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I shall speak for only a minute or two, as the time is so short.
When the President of the Board of Trade visited Lancashire early in December, and discussed local cotton problems with all sections of the community, he left them bitterly disappointed. I had the pleasure of raising the question of cotton in a debate just before the Christmas Recess. The answer by the President of the Board of Trade was similarly evasive and unsatisfactory.
It is very opportune that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has raised the question again tonight. It is seldom that we have seen so many hon. Members here for an Adjournment debate. I have never seen so many hon. Members here for an


Adjournment debate on the cotton industry the whole time I have been a Member of the House, which shows that people really are regarding this matter as of great importance.
I shall not go over again the questions which, broadly speaking have been admirably put by the three hon. Members opposite who have already spoken, but I would say that it is unfair to the industry and to the Government themselves to go on in the way in which they are at present. There is complete lack of confidence in the industry. Since the Government helped the industry extensively two years ago conditions have changed completely in a quite unforeseen way, and for that reason the Government should declare their policy.
If the Government say that they will, do nothing at all, the industry will largely go to the wall. We shall lose a large amount of valuable equipment and labour which we cannot get back. I believe that it is right to give reasonable protection to this industry, as is given to the textile industry in practically every other Western country—and most other industries of this country have had similarly good treatment.
I feel very strongly about this matter, but I shall not go any further with it tonight because of the lack of time and because we discussed at some length just before the House rose for the Christmas Recess.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It is unusual, to say the least, that we should have two Adjournment debates on the same subject on successive sittings of the House, but that is exactly what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) raised this matter as the last but one Adjournment before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, and here we are discussing the same industry on the first Adjournment of the next sitting of the House.
The industry is naturally anxious to know about its future, and is naturally considering every development that is taking place. It is right for me to start by emphasising one or two things that the President of the Board of Trade said. I must disagree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend left

the industry completely without guidance on the question of policy. He made it clear that the Government's policy had remained unchanged from the time when they undertook to give special assistance to the industry. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said that no industry has been treated in the same way. That is quite true. No industry has had the form of assistance which the cotton industry is now receiving.

Sir J. Barlow: What about the protection given to the motor car industry?

Mr. Holt: Is the Minister seriously putting forward that view? The textile industry had no protection from its chief Asian competitors for ten years, but the motor car industry has had protection from everyone, at 30 per cent.

Mr. Macpherson: The cotton industry has its protection of 17½ per cent.
As for imports from Hong Kong, Pakistan and India, they enter free from these Commonwealth countries. But the Government have not sat idly by in this matter. There are inter-industry agreements. It is suggested that when those agreements were extended there should have been no increase in the permitted imports, but is it thought for one instant that we could have got agreement on those terms between industries? Quite clearly the industries which were expanding in Hong Kong, India and Pakistan wanted to send more of their exports to this country.
The industry now knows where it is. It knows that agreements have been fixed, and it also knows that the President of the Board of Trade clearly stated that the Government would continue to restrain imports where appropriate, as permitted by our international obligations, and would assist in bringing about inter-industry agreements wherever this was the most practical way of dealing with the problem. We shall continue to carry out our obligations under the Cotton Industry Act, the purpose of which was always to establish a more compact and better-equipped industry.
Reference has been made to imports of cotton cloth. It has rightly been said that they have fallen off in the course of the year, but hon. Members may not realise the extent to which they have fallen off. In the first quarter of 1961 imports of pure cotton piece goods were


running at 221 million square yards. In the fourth quarter they were running at 138 million sq. yds. Total retained imports, after re-exports had been deducted, were running at 100 million sq. yds., giving a total of retained imports for 1961 of 521 million sq. yds. That is what has been happening recently.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) asked what would happen when we got another upsurge. We all know what happened on the last occasion. The industry's order books were completely full, and the merchants naturally looked abroad for goods to import. Probably they over-imported. The shelves in the warehouses were full and the result has been that there has been a considerable amount of de-stocking which, no doubt, has been at the expense of the production and output of the industry, with the result that the output has declined and there is at present a certain amount of short-time working. In the industry as a whole, there are vacancies outstanding. In spite of the contraction of the cotton industry, there has been no unemployment developing in the areas; far from it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Employment in the industry has rapidly and progressively reduced. Many of the prophecies now being published by the experts indicate that there will be continuing reduction of the 170,000. It is true that highly-skilled spinners have been able to find some form of alternative work. That is the argument that was so contemptible in 1923, when we were told that distinguished people could get jobs as commissionaires at cinemas. That is not a valid argument. The skill of the industry is wasting away. Men who have lived in the industry all their lives are being driven out. The hon. Gentleman said that we had to restrict production by legislation when German production is rapidly expanding and is, for the first time in history, overtaking ours.

Mr. Macpherson: Surely the overriding interest in this country must be to devote itself to those industries in which it can compete with other countries. An opportunity has been given to the cotton industry to put itself

in a position to compete by the redundancy scheme and, further, by the re-equipment scheme. Many firms are taking advantage of that and some are finding that with the appropriate lines they are able to compete and are competing very successfully at the present time. It is not every firm by any means that is working on short-time at present. Some firms are doing pretty well, even though, no doubt, they could do better, and we hope that they will do better.
The main point is that it really is not possible for the Government to assure to any industry a given proportion of the market in this country. They cannot give an assurance that imports will not be allowed to exceed a level which would endanger that level.

Mr. Rhodes: Why not?

Mr. Macpherson: Because if they do so they will be ignoring questions of demand, the effects of prices, competition, the effects on our trade relations with other countries with whom we cannot trade unless we buy from them, and all our international trade policies and all our commitments.

Mr. Rhodes: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Government are to do nothing at all? When we were coming up to the 1959 General Election, it was a different story from the Government Dispatch Box. Then the Government were prepared to dish out £30 million of public money. The trade pocketed £13½ million and I am not making any excuse for the trade for what they did on their part. I think, however, that it is up to the Government now to do something solid, imaginative and good for the trade instead of the hon. Gentleman coming to the Dispatch Box with this lame tale.

Mr. Macpherson: This is not a lame tale at all. This is the core of the trading policy of the country. We must devote our resources to those matters in which we can compete most successfully—

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macpherson: No, I cannot give way again. I have given way to hon. Members on a number of occasions.
It is up to the industry itself to make and determine its own place in our economy within the general framework of Government policy.
I wish to say—despite the interruptions I am glad that there is still time for me to say—what the Government are prepared to do. Of course, we recognise that other and large increases in low cost competition in cotton textiles may pose serious problems for the older established textile industries. It is widely recognised, as was said by the hon. Members for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) and Farnworth that the underdeveloped countries must be given increased opportunities of access to the markets of the wealthier countries, and textiles will continue to be among the first exports of manufactured goods achieved by the developing countries.
The short-term agreement already reached at Geneva provides arrangements for limiting very low-priced and disruptive imports. The standard for the limitation of imports introduced into the agreement is the level of imports in the year ending on 30th June last. That is on imports from under-developed countries. Our current rate of imports from most countries is already well below the level of this base year. Formosa was one of the few exceptions and action has been taken to limit our imports from there to that level. If imports of very cheap cloth from other sources reverse the recent trend and increase sharply and rise above the figure for the base year, and are disruptive in effect, we shall be prepared to consider action in accordance with the Geneva agreement.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear last November, when speaking in Geneva to the G.A.T.T. Ministerial Council, that having regard to the large proportion of the British market for cotton textiles now met by low-cost imports, we cannot accept any new commitment to take more, at least until others have made a comparable contribution to the problem of absorbing imports from the less-developed countries.

Mr. D. Jones: Is that enough?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Is that enough?" He is again basing himself on the idea that we can decide what level of production we should maintain in this country—that the Government should do so. But the position of the Government is that they give industry the opportunity to become competitive and then it is up to industry itself to decide how much of the market it is able to win and to hold.

Mr. D. Jones: It is most unfair.

Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty has arisen largely because of the accumulation of stocks. The Board of Trade is attempting to see how this problem can be tackled at the present time in consultation with the Cotton Board and the Grey Cloth Importers' Association, both of which bodies have been most cooperative. An inquiry into the stocks of cloth held by merchants is on the way. Forms have been sent out to the grey cloth importers which are being completed on a voluntary basis. Once that information is more generally known, it may be possible to avoid the sort of over-importing and over-stocking which took place last year.
I wish to refer briefly to the question of anti-dumping action. In the debate on 21st December, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained how we were anxious to help industry to secure its rights under the anti-dumping legislation. As was said by my right hon. Friend, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this, and since then discussions have taken place between officials and the various trade associations concerned about the best way to deal with the problems. I think the discussions have been helpful to all sections of industry. With the full knowledge of the position, and with the procedures available understood, I think that industry is in a much better position to contemplate the future than it has been for a long time.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.